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.

 

[His clay]

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.

I chose the handle many years ago. I found that the Creator/creature relationship answered the VAST majority of objections against God's sovereignty over all things. It is always a reminder to me that God is God, and I am not. Obviously, I got it from Romans 9.

 

[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?

Other forum
My attempted question was trying, in good faith, to get the other poster to actually think through his own view. I was hoping for the fleshing out of a few more of the hidden premises. In my view, the accusation was and is a blatant non-sequitur. The conclusion is certainly not arrived at by the premises provided. I even tried to think of how I would try to justify the claim and how I would answer my own question under an anti-Calvinist framework. But in the end, the other poster saw his view as axiomatic, as something so obvious that it could not be questioned. So my question was viewed as a satanic ploy, and my salvation was questioned.

Moving to this thread
I left my opinion out of the scenario in the opening post to give others the opportunity to share their thoughts, and I'm thankful for those who have participated in this little thought experiment. I hope to quickly interact with the various responses in the following posts.

 

[His clay]

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.

I appreciate your response here.
(1) I completely agree with the prescriptive/descriptive, decree/command category distinction.
(2) The Acts 2 verse and the Genesis 50 verse definitely give us helpful categories. I also like to include the Acts 4 verse where the infinitive "to do" is explicitly connected to "predestined." When scripture is looked at, and no legitimate counter interpretation is given, then the charge immediately falls apart. The accuser is then seen as attacking God's word.
(3) Arial stated, "The objection assumes that if God ordains something, he must approve of it morally." I'm in complete agreement. I've seen non-Calvinists use this assumption + equivocation to make arguments. For example: You are saying that it's God will for me to commit sin! Note the equivocation over the word "will." God's "will" in ordaining is significantly different than His "will" in making moral commands to His creatures. And this is why the previously mentioned verses are so very important, for they establish the category of human sinfulness being used in a righteous, holy, and good way by God. And in the end, I'm only repeating what you already stated; it is a category mistake.
(4) I completely agree that often the other side really has not done its homework. Now, this is not always the case, but it is generally true that the other side thinks that it is enough just to bash the enemy, and often they have nearly the same issues as the Calvinist, but they are not willing to admit it. I ran into this issue by confronting them with God's decision to create, knowing full well what His act of creating would entail. In short, I would only functioning off God's creation and His foreknowledge. Those are two premises they had to hold, but they refused to acknowledge that God knowingly created a universe that would inevitably lead to sin.

Also, the poster never considered his own problem with foreknowledge. The human choice could never be otherwise than what God knows, and thus his position could not sustain his own argument's animosity. Sure, his position's causality is different; but the certainty of events and choices was the same.

 

[makesends]

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.

To my thinking, this is a bit of a glossing over the facts, for the sake of ensuring God's Aseity is not compromised in the minds of the readers. Redemption is not from 'good death'.

It is agreed that Christ, in and of himself, is the reason for all of this, and no mistake. The taking into consideration of all the peripherals in the story [of history and its causes] does not encroach on that fact. They only affirm it.

That modern Christendom has a paradoxical fascination with the subject of sin is indeed at issue here —they focus on it as though it is endemic to 'what is' and to which God has set himself in opposition. Paradoxically, and to their shame, they seem to think that it is a blemish on God's decree, yet, in and of itself, something that man has the power to deal with apart from God, and "no big deal".

It is true that God indeed is first and above every other fact, and in and of himself existent in a way nothing else can be. But I see the same mistake here (bear with me) that is made by the lapsarian debate, as though to order God's decree. God's decree, or in this context, God's arrangement of plans and deeds cannot be ordered in toto. WE like to make one fact contingent on another, and there is truth to that, but our assessment necessarily falls short. We can say that there is no need for redemption if there was no sin —after all, redemption from what? But in God's mind is it not all one decree? So to me, the claim here is a bit out of line. If all that redemption was is the purpose behind it, even that (redemption FROM sin's ownership) cannot be separated from its definition.

To eat from the 'Tree of Life' indeed brings about ('opens') the Kingdom of Heaven, but that is not Redemption. It can be argued to, legally, result from redemption, or to, practically, result in redemption, but it is not redemption.

I do sincerely agree, that of itself, God's end result (to include ALL its particulars and perfections) is THE reason for creating, but the various means used to get there are also part of the decree. To suppose that there could be (or could have been) any other way is, at least empirically, not available to us to do more than to speculate on. To advance notions of a definition (viz. 'redemption') as if on its own is still a valid concept as what it was intended to do in its final result (our acceptance into the Kingdom of Heaven) as though separate from God's logical ordering also of what it was decreed to undo, is to me simply unimportant at best. I say this, while I do appreciate the importance of remembering that the nature of God does not include the nature of sin, which was also an intended result as means to the end.

 

[makesends]

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.

He's not. @His clay is saying that the guy (that His clay is referring to) is saying that Calvinists are (in effect, or by implication) assigning a lie to God.

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.

I think @His clay completely agrees with you.

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

 

[Josheb]

Redemption is not from 'good death'.

That is incorrect.

A good and sinless man died and was then resurrected. His "good death" is the means of redemption.

It is agreed that Christ, in and of himself, is the reason for all of this, and no mistake.

And now your own post has contradicted itself.


So, I am therefore out. I will not trade posts with someone whose posts chronically contradict themselves and never corrects the errors or repents of the thoughtless practice.

The taking into consideration of all the peripherals in the story [of history and its causes] does not encroach on that fact. They only affirm it.

That modern Christendom has a paradoxical fascination with the subject of sin is indeed at issue here —they focus on it as though it is endemic to 'what is' and to which God has set himself in opposition. Paradoxically, and to their shame, they seem to think that it is a blemish on God's decree, yet, in and of itself, something that man has the power to deal with apart from God, and "no big deal".

That compromises divine aseity. This portion of your commentary 1) contradicts your own position and the emphasis you in particular place of God's aseity and 2) ignores the explanations I have posted multiple times.

To eat from the 'Tree of Life' indeed brings about ('opens') the Kingdom of Heaven, but that is not Redemption. It can be argued to, legally, result from redemption, or to, practically, result in redemption, but it is not redemption.

Then you have either once again contradicted your own pov or just afformed my own. If there's no redemption where there is no sin, as you just stated, why would the tree of life be redemptive under such circumstances? What would be its purpose when no sin exists? Well, that question has already been answered...... and ignored.

I do sincerely agree, that of itself, God's end result (to include ALL its particulars and perfections) is THE reason for creating, but the various means used to get there are also part of the decree. To suppose that there could be (or could have been) any other way is, at least empirically, not available to us to do more than to speculate on.

Yep. None of that is a point of disagreement. The problem is there's an unstated "only" in within those words as they pertain to your often asserted determinism. The "only" is "Only what accomplishes that goal was decreed," and "God could not possibly have decreed anything that doesn't accomplish that goal. There are no extemporaneous occurrences outside the single, solitary specific goal of salvation (or God glorifying Himself through His redress (His dependent redress) of sin."

God's determining your choice of ice cream is instrumental in His saving you from sin.


This too has been pointed out multiple times.

To advance notions of a definition (viz. 'redemption') as if on its own is still a valid concept as what it was intended to do in its final result (our acceptance into the Kingdom of Heaven) as though separate from God's logical ordering also of what it was decreed to undo, is to me simply unimportant at best. I say this, while I do appreciate the importance of remembering that the nature of God does not include the nature of sin, which was also an intended result as means to the end.

I'm not sure how that's relevant when trading posts with me. I do not believe salvation occurs "as if on its own," and do not think the concept is valid at all.


I do not wish to have the same exchange already had in multiple threads. Please correct the errors and move the discussion forward with new content.

 

[His clay]

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.

As I read your post here, another writer comes to mind. Have you ever read Van Til? He is definitely a bit tougher person to read than the average. But Van Til brought forward a concept called "analogical reasoning," which is that we reason analogously from God when we are connected to truth. Another author described it in a similar way (alalogia entis: analogy of being); the author was Eric Voegelin in a book called Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. Another author, John Frame, had made these thoughts a bit more accessible for the average reader; Frame was a student of Van Til. I'm specifically addressing your comments regarding, "we have God's ability to assess fact" and that "God is the very beginning and upholder of all other fact."

I've also seen this demonstrated in the form of modernism (in a bad way) where all fact is reduced down to the imminent (Voegelin calls this deicide: i.e. the murder of god). All is reduced down to the same level of man so that man can then legitimately be able to become an ultimate knower. Consider the following link (post #4 for further detail along this line of thought).
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-creator-creature-distinction.1290/

You stated, "adopt a stance that assumes a thing predestined is a thing automatic," I have definitely seen this assumption in action. This is especially true when people say that Calvinists should just ignore witnessing, since God has chosen. But this ignores the means that God uses, and it ignores the fact that we don't know who the elect are. They view God's sovereignty in Calvinism as something automatic, as something that ignores the progress of history, in which case they demonstrate a very truncated, poorly thought out view of Calvinism, which is not actually Calvinism. . . . However, while I do agree that this assumption is made at times, I struggle to see this assumption in the case the opening post describes. It is certainly possible for the other person to have had this assumption, but I saw no indication of that assumption being used. Perhaps I am wrong, and I'm just missing what your assessment is pointing toward.

This final paragraph will introduce another author and book: One or Two: seeing a world of difference. This is a book written by Peter Jones. I got this recommendation from listening to John Frame's philosophy lecture series. I ended up buying two books, and I have yet to read past chapter one. (Sigh) I definitely need to take the time to read it sometime, if only to skim through it.

At any rate, I hope that these are helpful thoughts. I also think that I've read K. Scott Oliphint where he endorsed the same analogical view of knowing and human knowledge. I bring this up because you stated your struggle with expressing the idea adequately. Perhaps these authors may make it clearer.

 

[His clay]

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:

I love the word "manifold;" one can also translate it as the multifaceted wisdom of God. It further elaborates upon the greatness of God's plan, design, and knowledge. His eternal purpose, which He purposed in Jesus Christ is truly a wonderful thing. Ephesians 3:10 also points to this manifold wisdom of God. It might be good to compare the two passages to see the similarities if you have not done that already. Thanks for posting such a wonderful passage of scripture.

 

[His clay]

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

I don't see the "lie" either. As stated in post #13, "My attempted question was trying, in good faith, to get the other poster to actually think through his own view. I was hoping for the fleshing out of a few more of the hidden premises. In my view, the accusation was and is a blatant non-sequitur."

I like your approach, which appears to be taking his premises and demonstrating that if he has a problem, it is not with Calvinism, but rather a problem with Biblical realities.

Regarding my handle, I addressed it in post #12. However, I love the reminder. I am His clay; God owns me; and as such God has property rights that others do not have. He can do with His clay whatever pleases Him.