Predestination, Honesty, and Sin

[His clay]

Setting Up the Issue
In another forum the poster accused Calvinists of endorsing a God who lies. His support for this viewpoint was that God (in Calvinist thought) predestined sin, but God also said that sin was evil. Humans are commanded not to sin. Somehow, to this poster, this viewpoint (predestination + a command to not sin = lie/dishonesty in God) was so utterly obvious that to question it was to bring into question one's salvation.

Two Responses
(1) In that particular thread, I asked the following.

"How would that be a lie or dishonest? I'm trying to understand your thinking. According to you, to predetermine a sinful action and command against doing said action constitutes a lie. How does that amount to a lie or dishonesty? Is the assumption here that an 'ought' implies 'ability'?"

(2) The obvious consensus of posters responded by rightfully pointing to Hebrews 6:18. God cannot lie.

Question for This Forum
How would you respond to this issue?

 

[Arial]

The objection that if God predestines sin and also commands us not to sin, equals God telling a lie and being dishonest only works if several biblical distinctions are collapsed. Calvinism recognizes the tension but distinguishes categories so that the charge of lying never lands.

God's decree and his command are distinct. What he ordains will come to pass and is often hidden from us. His decretive will.

What God commands is his preceptive will--he makes it known to us. It is what he commands and approves, and it can be disobeyed by creatures.

He can decree that an act occurs without approving the act itself. Scripture affirms this. "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:23)

"You meant evil against me, but God meant if for good," (Gen 50:20)

The objection assumes that if God ordains something, he must approve of it morally. That is a category mistake. a non sequitur (even if God ordains X it does not follow that God morally approves of X unless an additional premise is supplied, since that premise is not self-evident), and a dialectical error (begging the question). It assumes what it needs to prove: that divine ordination entails moral approval.

The real issue is not Calvinism, though it is always couched in Calvinism when attacking the theology. The real issue is whether God can sovereignly govern evil without being evil. And no one opposing Calvinism, or within their own theology, has satisfactorily found a way to deal with that. Scripture says he can and he does. Those opposing Calvinism/Reformed simply make the C/R sound like it presents an evil God, while not biblically accurately dealing with the issue themselves, or taking their own rebuttals to its farthest reach. If they did, they would find they have presented a God who is powerless or indifferent in the face of evil.

 

[makesends]

FWIW, I understand that poster (not sure it's the same one) also to claim that Jesus cannot be God and be "able" to sin as a man.

Both of these adopt a stance that assumes a thing predestined is a thing automatic. The same thing is said of any predestined/ ordained/ decreed/ intentionally created fact. It is a point-of-view I have seen for many years now, that I have struggled for years to describe adequately. It assumes we have God's ability to assess fact, and it, even more neglectfully or heretically --certainly ignorantly-- has a missed comprehension of the nature of God. They 1)philosophically deistically consider God a separate existing concept like any other, subject to their assessments, who began everything, but, for the occasional interventions to set things back on course, (and to influence people), leaves everything to govern itself, instead of 2)considering God being in and of himself existent ...within which concept is the philosophically necessary truth that God is the very beginning and upholder of all other fact. The nature of God is such that these things are not automatic, but rather, that they are SURE.

 

[brightfame52]

God predestined sin since it served His ultimate purpose in Christ to save a people for His Glory. This world was made for an eternal purpose in Christ Eph 3:9-11

9 ;And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

 

[fastfredy0]

In another forum the poster accused Calvinists of endorsing a God who lies. His support for this viewpoint was that God (in Calvinist thought) predestined sin, but God also said that sin was evil. Humans are commanded not to sin. Somehow, to this poster, this viewpoint (predestination + a command to not sin = lie/dishonesty in God) was so utterly obvious that to question it was to bring into question one's salvation.

I don't see what "lie" the guy is assigning to God? Thus, I would show that both premises this guy proposes as lie(s) are in fact true.

Premise 1: God said sin is evil (true by definition)
Premise 2: God predestined sin ... this is also true.
Proof: God Decreed/predetermined the Gravest of All Sins

• Acts 2:23 this Man, when handed over [to the Roman authorities] according to the predetermined decision and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross and put to death by the hands of lawless and godless men.
• Acts 4:27-28 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Coincidence? interesting that a person's handle is "His clay" and bringing up predestination

 

[makesends]

Coincidence? interesting that a person's handle is "His clay" and bringing up predestination

Not sure what you're saying here. @His clay is Calvinistic, if not Calvinist/Reformed.

 

[Josheb]

Question for This Forum
How would you respond to this issue?

Prove it.


That'd be my reply. The problem is there are monergists who think that is what Calvinism teaches. However, the moment you go down that path of discussion you've already conceded ground you do not want to concede. You'll end up consuming pages of posts debating divine causality of sin and never the post-sin state of the sinner. Give this post HERE a read.

The strawman certainly needs to be corrected but the only way to do that is to provide scripture and that's not going to work because every verse you post the synergist will interpret differently. Providing quotes from Calvin won't work because that will confront their sources and reveal them to be false witnesses (or liars) and that will trigger all the fleshly defensiveness the synergist can muster. Appealing to later Calvinists/monergists runs the risk of competing appeals to authority (for every extra-biblical Calvinist source you provide as an authority on the matter, the synergist provides an extra-biblical synergist authority). The best response is to keep their dross in their lap. There's a hidden, unstated, presupposition in the synergist's notion God predestined sin. What the synergist means is God caused sin to happen and thereby made sin and made sinner's and made sinners sin. There's not a Calvinist in human history who believes all that. With a sincere inquirer it would be easy to address. Simply post Article 3 of the WCF, but, as I just stated, the synergist is not going to accept that. They're going to say that is an example of Calvinist inconsistency. That scenario means you are playing defense. Stop it. Keep their dross on their side of the conversation.

Ask them to prove Calvinism teaches God predestined sin in a strictly deterministic manner.

After you've suffered through multiple attempts to change the subject..... keep their dross on their side of the conversation.

After you've suffered the ad hominem..... keep their dross on their side of the conversation.

Ask them why it is they accepted their source's accusation? Ask them whether or not they understand the problem with saying God caused sin (I know. That should be obvious, but you'd be surprised how alarming that request is to the synergist asserting it as an inherent Calvinism). One they've acknowledged the blatant absurdity of the premise get them to acknowledge it's not reasonable for Calvinists to assert the absurdity and somewhere along the ay they bought into some guys baseless accusation unnecessarily. If you can get them to that point, then maybe you can have a rational conversation boult on well-rendered scripture but even then the monergist will always have to be able to tolerate the huge differences in the way scripture is interpreted. The synergist constantly infers volition where no mention of volition is found. The chronically read scripture to imply volition and if you ask them why they read the implication into scripture one of three explanations will ensue: 1) the inference will be based on the Christian's volitional agency (the audience affiliations are ignored) or 2) causation is assumed over correlation, or 3) the text is psychologized (with an emphasis on secular centrality of humanism). Remember: the synergist does not believe the sinner's will is enslaved. Everything they believe is predicated upon volitional agency and volitional agency of the sinner, the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner.

That is why I always say, "sinfully dead and enslaved sinner" when discussing soteriolgoy with a synergist. We're not talking about how saved people are saved. The Arm v Cal debate is always about how non-Christian sinfully dead and enslaves sinners are saved from sin.


So.....


Why do you think volition is relevant?

It just is.​

Explain it to me, using scripture.

Humans have choices.​

We're not talking about humans. We're talking about sinners, sinners who are sinfully dead and enslaved by sin.

(insert ad hominem of your choice)​

Thank you for your time .


Isn't that the essence of every Arm v Cal debate over the last 500 years? Why would you expect you or I can do better than some of the most brilliant apologists in Christendom if we don't change the conversation?

How would you respond to this issue?

Prove it.

Keep their dross on their side of the conversation. Ask them to prove Calvinism teaches God predestined sin.

Did Cause make sin?

No.​

I completely agree. Why do you think certain synergists think others think God causes sin?

What?​

If you, a synergist, and I, a monergist, agree God did not make sin, then why do you think some people think others do not grasp what you and I so readily and easily agree on?

aaarrrgghh!​

Let me rephrase my question. Who was it that said, "God predestined sin?"

(let's assume, for the moment the synergist can actually provide a Calvinist stating God predestined sin in the causal manner) It's right here at X (some link is provided)​

Do you think that person is correct?

No.​

Neither do I. Will you take a look at this source here, here, and here? (or choose a source of your liking)

(whatever their response is, it's no on the record Cals do not think God deterministically caused sin and, therefore, the "predestination of sin" is not to be understood as God making sin and making all people sinners He then has to save because of His action)​

These are a couple of scenarios but, personally, I do not think the occurrence of sin is particularly relevant to what God predestined and that is just going to cause the synergist's head to explode . I'll have to take that up in a separate post. My answer to the question asked is to ask them to prove their own accusation. Keep their dross on their end of the conversation and don't play defense.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

How would you respond to this issue?

I have to go so I will keep this brief.

I believe Christian thinkers on all sides of the debate have made a presuppositional mistake. It is assumed sin is what scripture is all about. Or, to re-word that a little more accurately, while we can all agree scripture is about Christ crucified and resurrected, a mistake has been made thinking sin is the only reason Christ occurs. Scripture states Christ was foreknown as the perfect sacrifice (1 Pet. 1) but that does not mean sin had to happen. Sin did happen, but sin did not have to happen for the Father to foreknow His Son as the perfect sacrifice. The minute the necessity of sin is asserted we make God and His plan dependent. That instantly negates His aseity.

The better alternative is to understand humans were made mortal AND the tree of life existed in the garden as the only means of obtaining unending life prior to sin's occurrence. In other words, God had a plan for eternal life absent Adam's disobedience. God made provision for eternal life prior to sin's occurrence - He made provision that would bring eternal life if Adam had never disobeyed Him. Had Adam never disobeyed God then Adam would have died (physically) and still been in need of the fruit from the tree of life. Adam would have still died if he'd never sinned and never eaten from the tree of life. He'd have died good, but he'd still be dead. The minute he disobeyed God his physical mortality combined with his disobedience meant he would have died bad. He's still dead, either way but the first way is good dead and the second way is sinfully dead. Either way, Adam (and by extension all the rest of humanity) is still in need of an escape from his inherent mortality.


Hence the need for Christ.

Hence the need for Christ in both the good sinless state and the bad sinful state. Hence the inherent ontologically Jesus as the resurrection and the life (his ontological identity as the tree of life).

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

He said that about himself before he died. He was the resurrection before he died. He did NOT say, "I am going to be the resurrection." He made an ontological statement, a statement about his inherent nature prior to his death. He was foreknown as the resurrection, the perfect sacrifice. He, as the tree that brought eternal life, was planted in the garden and, prior to Adam's disobedience, God told Adam and Eve they were free to partake of it anytime they liked. That option was removed once disobedience occurred. It was then that scripture reported on the ensuing history. God, of course, omnisciently knew sin would occur. That does not mean God had to have sin occur and, thereby, make Himself, His Son, and His entire plan dependent on His antithesis. Instead, God simply shrugged His proverbial shoulders and said, "Meh. That's a big problem for humanity, but I've already got that covered. Not a problem for Me."

That changes the entire conversation about predestination. It's completely consistent with a monergistic view, but it's going to cause the synergist a lot of problems because it still visits the question of why they think volitional agency is necessary.

 

[James]

How would you respond to this issue?

Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.

Acts 26:28
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God's will is typically categorized into two parts: His Secret Will, which encompasses what He sovereignly decrees for all eternity, and His Revealed Will, which includes His explicit commands and guidelines for how to live.

 

[fastfredy0]

Not sure what you're saying here. @His clay is Calvinistic, if not Calvinist/Reformed.

I'm saying the @His clay 's name has "predestination" written all over it IMO and seems to fit well into the subject of the thread. Clay is the substance that the potter molds.
I wasn't commenting on his affiliation to Calvinism.

 

[fastfredy0]

That'd be my reply. The problem is there are monergists who think that is what Calvinism teaches. However, the moment you go down that path of discussion you've already conceded ground you do not want to concede. You'll end up consuming pages of posts debating divine causality of sin and never the post-sin state of the sinner. Give this post HERE a read.

Good point ... I like it better than my answer.