Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[DialecticSkeptic]

I agree. My question then becomes, "Are those who belong to the evil one given to him in the same sense as the elect are given to Christ? And were they created for that purpose?"

I will leave it to others with a better knowledge of scriptures than I possess, but I suspect that the reprobate aren't given to the evil one in the same sense that the elect are given to Christ. I suspect that this, too, is something God does passively, not actively. Left in their state of condemnation by God (preteritional reprobation), they are fair game, as it were, to the evil one. On this view, it is a matter of spiritual dominion and divine abandonment. They walk according to the pattern of the evil one, not because he created them but because as covenant-breakers (sinners) they are spiritually aligned with him. Their desires and intentions match his; their nature is congruent with his. As such, their belonging is moral and volitional, not ontological. Belonging to the evil one is a statement of covenantal identity; those not united to Christ are by default under the dominion of the evil one. The sons of disobedience belong to the devil, not because they were given to him but because, in being left in their fallen condition, they remain in the domain of darkness (Col. 1:13). It is, ultimately, an expression of God's judicial abandonment and sovereign prerogative in election and reprobation: The elect are graciously delivered out of the domain of darkness, while the reprobate are left in it—to their condemnation, to Satan's deceptive sway, and to their just end.

... but only spiral backwards and backwards trying to find God in words and not faith.

Just to clarify my own position (as a participant in this discussion): I am not trying to find God in words, for I have already found him in faith through Christ and illumined by the Spirit. Rather, I am exploring God in words, trying to learn and understand who he is and what he has done. And I must do this in words because they represent the clearest lines of communication—or revelation, if you will. And, looking at scriptures, it would seem God thought so, too.

We come to this great chasm of infinity and an infinite God and our minds can go no farther. He has set our boundaries in spacious places, to be sure, but it is still a "thus far, and no further."

And yet, "Secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law" (Deut 29:29).

You know, I do not find the saints of old—or even the first century saints, what we have in our Bible—asking these questions or trying to "solve" God.

To be fair, we don't have access to the conversations they had among themselves or with others. Maybe they did ask questions like this, and maybe those conversations influenced the contents of the letters they wrote. I am not saying it's a fact, but it's undeniable that we don't know what they talked about.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
You know, I do not find the saints of old—or even the first century saints, what we have in our Bible—asking these questions or trying to "solve" God.

To be fair, we don't have access to the conversations they had among themselves or with others. Maybe they did ask questions like this, and maybe those conversations influenced the contents of the letters they wrote. I am not saying it's a fact, but it's undeniable that we don't know what they talked about.

Not to speak for @Arial , but what she said reminded me of something we have both said before, that in other times in history, other cultures, there were other worldviews, many of which did not have our current [particularly American] assumption of anthropocentrism. The questions they asked, trying to figure out what/who God is, had to have been different in some ways. Philosophy has come a long way, and not all of it good. We see that in Scripture —some things that we find through our hermeneutical practices do not naturally come by the 'plain reading' method.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The questions they asked, trying to figure out what/who God is, had to have been different in some ways.

And yet similar in some ways, too. For example, we are still influenced by Plato and Aristotle in the 21st century.

 

[Whatever]

Were they born without any purpose on God's part? Surely not. No, they were born not "simply because" a couple had sex but because God had a purpose for each and every one of them. There is a real sense in which God wanted the tares, too—not as his own but nevertheless for a purpose.

Well, there is a positive purpose and a negative purpose. The wheat were born to be brought to glory Heb. 2:10
This life is a kind of reform school for them to build their character.

Zechariah 13:9 I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, 'This is My people'; And each one will say, 'The LORD is my God.' "

The tares or the wicked are the ones who provide the fire. Like literally with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 3.

 

[Whatever]

It's more than God simply "allowing" it to happen.

Things that God allows are still part of His decrees.

In both my New King James and English Standard Version, in Job chapter 1 at verse 6 it has the heading "Satan Allowed to Test Job."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, there is a positive purpose and a negative purpose.

Exactly. So, we are agreed that it wasn't "simply because" a couple had sex. There is a purpose to every life God creates.

 

[Whatever]

Exactly. So, we are agreed that it wasn't "simply because" a couple had sex. There is a purpose to every life God creates.

But the Lord said that the devil sowed the tares. God purposefully created the wheat.
He allowed the rest to be born to be used for His purpose of putting His people through trials.

 

[Arial]

I will leave it to others with a better knowledge of scriptures than I possess, but I suspect that the reprobate aren't given to the evil one in the same sense that the elect are given to Christ. I suspect that this, too, is something God does passively, not actively. Left in their state of condemnation by God (preteritional reprobation), they are fair game, as it were, to the evil one. On this view, it is a matter of spiritual dominion and divine abandonment. They walk according to the pattern of the evil one, not because he created them but because as covenant-breakers (sinners) they are spiritually aligned with him. Their desires and intentions match his; their nature is congruent with his. As such, their belonging is moral and volitional, not ontological. Belonging to the evil one is a statement of covenantal identity; those not united to Christ are by default under the dominion of the evil one. The sons of disobedience belong to the devil, not because they were given to him but because, in being left in their fallen condition, they remain in the domain of darkness (Col. 1:13). It is, ultimately, an expression of God's judicial abandonment and sovereign prerogative in election and reprobation: The elect are graciously delivered out of the domain of darkness, while the reprobate are left in it—to their condemnation, to Satan's deceptive sway, and to their just end.

I actually agree with this. It is the "in Adam" that separates the sheep from the goats. The sheep are born in Adam and need to be rescued from the kingdom of darkness (the serpents kingdom) that Adam's (as mankind's federal head) treason brought upon humanity and creation. The sheep are rescued by being placed in Christ, and the rest are not placed there. The goats are willing servants of the devil. The sheep were his servants but were purchased by Christ's shed blood as his servants.

Just to clarify my own position (as a participant in this discussion): I am not trying to find God in words, for I have already found him in faith through Christ and illumined by the Spirit. Rather, I am exploring God in words, trying to learn and understand who he is and what he has done. And I must do this in words because they represent the clearest lines of communication—or revelation, if you will. And, looking at scriptures, it would seem God thought so, too.

Oh, I did not mean what I said in that way. I am not saying words are a bad thing, or that using words to describe or "explore" the things of God is a bad thing. We would be nowhere without them. It is just that we can take it into areas where they just won't do and keep trying and trying, and get so caught up with knowledge we can (for a time) lose sight of simple faith. "God says it, so it is so."

I remember that first love, that first simple childlike faith, sometimes with longing. Even though I also remember well when God made it known that it was time to begin to "grow up" and how grateful I have always been for it. And faith grows with knowledge. We must be careful to not let the knowledge overshadow (not diminish) simple faith.

And yet, "Secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law" (Deut 29:29).

Yes. The chasm of infinity that we reach I spoke of, is when we are trying to peer into those secret things, and actually think we can or have. It is important to recognize the difference, and when we are doing that.

To be fair, we don't have access to the conversations they had among themselves or with others. Maybe they did ask questions like this, and maybe those conversations influenced the contents of the letters they wrote. I am not saying it's a fact, but it's undeniable that we don't know what they talked about.

True. I stand corrected.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But the Lord said that the devil sowed the tares. God purposefully created the wheat. He allowed the rest to be born to be used for his purpose of putting his people through trials.

1. Explain how that changes what I said, please.

Edited to add (11:32 pm EST):

2. There appears to be a major difference between your view and mine. Judging by how you expressed yourself here, it looks like you think people are born apart from God's creative activity—he creates the wheat but allows the tares to be born. But Job stated the matter best with his rhetorical question, "Did not the one who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us in the womb?" (Job 31:15).

God purposefully created the wheat, yes, but he also purposefully created the tares (i.e., their existence did not escape God's purposes). It's not as if he allowed them to be born and then wondered what he might do with them. No, he fashioned them in the womb to fulfill his purposes from the foundation of the world, including the likes of Sennacherib (who was not one of the wheat).

 

[makesends]

Things that God allows are still part of His decrees.

In both my New King James and English Standard Version, in Job chapter 1 at verse 6 it has the heading "Satan Allowed to Test Job."

Yes, but it is more than just God "allowing" Satan to test Job. That Satan is a willed individual is not all there is to what happened there—God intended from the beginning for every detail, and, in my opinion, even put Satan into the situation for that purpose.

Look at his use of foreign rulers to punish Israel, then punished that same ruler for doing it! I love the story in 2 Chronicles 18, how God even 'brings up the question' of a deceiving spirit to entice Ahab!

 

[makesends]

And yet similar in some ways, too. For example, we are still influenced by Plato and Aristotle in the 21st century.

Yes, though it is worth mentioning that Plato and Aristotle were not representative of common thought back then, unless in philosophical/ Greek circles. Superstitious as most lands were, back then, from what I understand, gods were pretty much assumed to not be particularly nice, but needed to be appeased or whatever. They were considered (as I understand it) closer to basic fact than humanity was—humanity being at the disposal of the gods.

 

[Eleanor]

makesends beat me to it.

Were they born without any purpose on God's part? Surely not. No, they were born not "simply because" a couple had sex but because God had a purpose for each and every one of them. There is a real sense in which God wanted the tares, too—not as his own but nevertheless for a purpose.

See Ro 9:22-23.

 

[ReverendRV]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ; and is the choosing that God does, choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

Have you considered Paternal Traducianism versus Creationism, when deciding? Creationism has God Creating each Soul individually in the Womb; Paternal Traducianism has Adam/Man passing down our Souls through Procreation. I don't know how God's Choice would be greater or lesser in one or the other...

But Providence governs over both. Providence is always the answer. Fundamentalism in Theology...

 

[Arial]

Have you considered Paternal Traducianism versus Creationism, when deciding? Creationism has God Creating each Soul individually in the Womb; Paternal Traducianism has Adam/Man passing down our Souls through Procreation. I don't know how God's Choice would be greater or lesser in one or the other...

But Providence governs over both. Providence is always the answer. Fundamentalism in Theology...

I think, no matter how much we consider one thing over the other, we will never find a definitive answer to that question. It will be speculation, and I am not saying that is a bad thing, or that it is something that should not be discussed. I have witnessed unending arguments over the matter when someone starts determining what a soul is and then arriving at their conclusion.

God does not give us the answers to those things. What a soul is or what a spirit is, or exactly the manner in which we inherit sin through Adam. Or when he creates a soul or how we come to have one. We know from what he does tell us, that all men are sinners in Adam, and presents Adam as our federal head. The logic can be worked forward or backward, but it remains that a headship is established particularly when Paul tells us in Romans that all are in the one man, Adam and the believer is in the one man Christ. It tells us we are born in Adam and our only hope is to be reborn in Christ.

It tells us that God knew us before creation, and it tells us that he is the only Creator. Which makes us all his creation, even though we come into existence through the natural means he established. Since he knew those he would give to Jesus, and who Christ died for, I simply lean towards his creating the redeemed for the purpose of giving them to Christ. The mechanics of it, I leave to others to discuss.

 

[makesends]

ReverendRV said:
Have you considered Paternal Traducianism versus Creationism, when deciding? Creationism has God Creating each Soul individually in the Womb; Paternal Traducianism has Adam/Man passing down our Souls through Procreation. I don't know how God's Choice would be greater or lesser in one or the other...

But Providence governs over both. Providence is always the answer. Fundamentalism in Theology...

I think, no matter how much we consider one thing over the other, we will never find a definitive answer to that question. It will be speculation, and I am not saying that is a bad thing, or that it is something that should not be discussed. I have witnessed unending arguments over the matter when someone starts determining what a soul is and then arriving at their conclusion.

God does not give us the answers to those things. What a soul is or what a spirit is, or exactly the manner in which we inherit sin through Adam. Or when he creates a soul or how we come to have one. We know from what he does tell us, that all men are sinners in Adam, and presents Adam as our federal head. The logic can be worked forward or backward, but it remains that a headship is established particularly when Paul tells us in Romans that all are in the one man, Adam and the believer is in the one man Christ. It tells us we are born in Adam and our only hope is to be reborn in Christ.

It tells us that God knew us before creation, and it tells us that he is the only Creator. Which makes us all his creation, even though we come into existence through the natural means he established. Since he knew those he would give to Jesus, and who Christ died for, I simply lean towards his creating the redeemed for the purpose of giving them to Christ. The mechanics of it, I leave to others to discuss.

I would say that our tendency to make it one or the other, or some combination, or any other construction we come up with, is, by fact of what we are —mere creatures— NOT how God sees it—not how God does it.

But we do have some sense of intuitive understanding and good reason; I would hazard to guess that God being infinite and ultimate and timeless implies that he not see a whole lot of difference between creation and intervention. It is WE who insist on the difference, as though any other way does not represent reality. WE must show a difference so that we can remain cogent in our thinking.

And not to say that if God does not see a difference there, I do not mean that he is ignorant of any difference, but that his specificity is so very particular and controlled that his general actions are also very particular. For example, his immanence in the motions of, and even the very existence of, the smallest particle or force or principle of fact is what he spoke into existence at the beginning. His ability to say that he would have destroyed Israel, had not Moses convinced him not to, is answered by the fact that God put Moses there for that very reason. Ha! Yep, God is not like us!

So when we want to be definite about, for example, did God create sinners, we have to qualify our "YES", by directing our attention to God's purposes in creating— and not that we are good at that— but at least that can help us to be skeptical about the concepts and words that we are only just beginning to learn how to use, and that we will, only when we see him as he is, finally understand.

 

[Eleanor]

I think, no matter how much we consider one thing over the other, we will never find a definitive answer to that question. It will be speculation, and I am not saying that is a bad thing, or that it is something that should not be discussed. I have witnessed unending arguments over the matter when someone starts determining what a soul is and then arriving at their conclusion.

God does not give us the answers to those things. What a soul is or what a spirit is, or exactly the manner in which we inherit sin through Adam.

Let me add something here.

We don't inherit sin through Adam, for sin is not inherited (Eze 18:20), however, we inherit his fallen nature and physical death.
Rather, God imputes Adam's sin to those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) just as he imputes Christ's righteousness to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 2 Co 5:21).

Or when he creates a soul or how we come to have one. We know from what he does tell us, that all men are sinners in Adam, and presents Adam as our federal head. The logic can be worked forward or backward, but it remains that a headship is established particularly when Paul tells us in Romans that all are in the one man, Adam and the believer is in the one man Christ. It tells us we are born in Adam and our only hope is to be reborn in Christ.

It tells us that God knew us before creation, and it tells us that he is the only Creator. Which makes us all his creation, even though we come into existence through the natural means he established. Since he knew those he would give to Jesus, and who Christ died for, I simply lean towards his creating the redeemed for the purpose of giving them to Christ. The mechanics of it, I leave to others to discuss.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think no matter how much we consider one thing over the other, we will never find a definitive answer to that question.

If we'll never find a definitive answer to that question when considering one thing over another, doesn't that sort of hint at a third alternative? Half the fun, of course, is piecing together what that alternative would look like. I stumbled across one a few years ago that seems to provide a broad range of definitive answers—including to this question—which scratches both my logical and pattern-seeking itches quite nicely.

And yeah, sure, it's speculative, but that is neither automatically nor inherently a bad thing, like you said. As far as I'm concerned, if a speculative idea is consistent with the broad outlines and finer details of scripture within the Reformed hermeneutic of redemptive history, doesn't do any violence to Christology or the incarnation, and grows out of a rigorous exegetical analysis of relevant texts, then it is entirely appropriate to hold that view at least provisionally and tentatively. That doesn't somehow make it a good thing—although it would definitely be on the right track—but it does mean it's not a bad thing, at least to me.

 

[His clay]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

My disclaimer: I have not read this thread; so if I write something that others have written, please be patient with the repetition.

Brainstorming through various verses
I'll start by just brainstorming. A few verses immediately come to mind. The first speaks of various individuals in building terminology.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4-5 ESV)

The passage continues to use building terminology to describe Jesus, believers, and unbelievers.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9 ESV)

A connection is made between God's choosing, the establishment of a holy nation, and a people for his own possession (for the purpose of the proclamation of God's glory in redemption).

A friend of mine, a few months ago, shared with me the building terminology in the book of Ephesians. I'll try my best to remember the words he pointed out. (1) In Ephesians 1:4 "to choose" is from a word that connects to brick/stone masons who would carefully select a stone. (2) In the same verses we have the phrase "foundation of the world." Foundation is another building terminology word. (3) Ephesians 2:10 utilizes the word "workmanship," so we who are made alive are also ones who God has built to function in a certain way. (4) Sadly, my memory is very hazy, and I cannot remember all of them anymore. I'm trying to remember a conversation at the mall several months ago, and a lot has happened since then. However, I'll at least quote the two verses mentioned above.

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (1:4 ESV)
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (2:10 ESV)

We also see, in Ephesians 3:7-13, a reference to the creative power of God, His eternal purpose, and His manifold wisdom. In particular, Paul seems to be speaking of the gospel's relationship to the Gentiles. I see this connecting back to the prior mentioned statement in 1:4, where God chose us in Him. This "in Him" refers to Christ as the instrument of redemption or maybe as one in fellowship and planning with God. An oft missed fact is that the "chose" in 1:4 is in the middle, and it makes sense to see this as God choosing for Himself. Also, the opening of verse 4 is translated by the ESV as "even as," and this is definitely a legitimate translation. However, I prefer to take the word in a causal sense, where one would translate it as "because."

This sense of the word would create a very interesting understanding of the relationship between verse 3 and 4. We are given a very significant summary statement speaking of the blessings found in Christ Jesus to us. Immediately following is a causal sense of the word "because," and this would lead us to conclude that Paul is explaining to us the causal foundation of the blessings we have in Christ. These blessings are built upon the past, current, and future working of God (1:4-14). Hence, I would suggest that we can read 3 and 4 in the following way.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In 1:6 we see some God-centered motivation mentioned.

to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (ESV)

Verse 1:13 speaks toward the praise of His glory.

We also have some very interesting comments.

according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:7c-10 ESV)

God's wisdom, insight, purpose, plan are located in Christ for the unifying of all things in Him.

A Few Concluding Thoughts from the Previous Brainstorming
God's choice and redemption of His people is founded upon Himself and Christ in an eternal purpose and plan. As I have argued elsewhere, His choice is not conditioned upon the libertarian faith (the Arminian conditional election position) of people. Rather, God's knowledge is sourced ultimately in Himself (His self-sufficient nature). God chose a people, implemented His redemption of them, in keeping with His insanely amazing wisdom and planning. God's working does not rule out the activity of people; rather, God's working, building, creating, making alive, and fashioning brings about their activities. He gives them faith; therefore, they believe. They are His workmanship; therefore, they do good works. Thusly, God gets the glory. Redemption is God-centered. And the activity of people is not founded upon human ultimacy (as the libertarian/Arminian position assumes); rather the activity of people is founded upon God's grace and wisdom as He causes their lives to change to bring about His redemptive purposes.

Sadly, I've been falsely and stupidly accused of promoting synergism of the Arminian kind. The above words cannot possibly be taken that way. I hold to a compatibilist view, sometimes called concurrence, and I've argued extensively against libertarian freedom, which is a huge foundation of Arminian synergism (i.e. Arminian metaphysics).

In closing, I hope that these thoughts have helped. This has been a long time coming, and I hope that I've answered your questions and given you some food for thought. Please let me know what you think. I would love to see how you have evaluated these words.

 

[His clay]

@Arial
I tried hard to keep the Greek mentions to a minimum. The goal was to make it more readable and understandable. I hope that I succeeded.

 

[Eleanor]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

Yes. And also to his choosing for the contrary.
Sin is necessary to manifest God's justice, wrath, judgment and to manifest his power in judging, conquering and saving from sin.
Divine love is made to shine more gloriously when it shines in the midst of wrath and judgment. (Ro 5:21-23)

That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered.

The whole plan is about manifesting his glory in preparing a bride for his Son.

I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.