Dialogos
Well-known member
Derf,
C’est-La-Vie, I’m not a confessionally minded Calvinist nor do I consider Calvin to be infallible.
A God that can make anything He wants come to pass also has the power to effortlessly prevent anything He doesn’t want coming to pass from becoming actuated in history. So, let us grant the open theist assumption, for the sake of argumentation, that God doesn’t exhaustively know what will come to pass. God, at least, knows that nothing will come to pass that He is not willing for it to come to pass because God knows that whatever might come to pass will be shaped by His will, either by His actively interceding or His passively allowing.
For example, God has the power to keep us from stumbling (Jude 1:24). Therefore, God similarly had the power to keep Adam from stumbling, but didn’t. God knew, at least, that Adam might fall, after all God put the instrument of Adam’s fall in the garden. And God knew, at least, that if Adam reached out to take the fruit He would not prevent it even though Jude 1:24 tells us clearly that He could have prevented it.
So whether the decree is an active decree that Adam would stumble or a passive decree to allow Adam to stumble the results are the same, the fall is not outside of God’s will and therefore not outside of God’s decree.
Joseph’s response to his brothers is theologically remarkable.
“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen 50:20 ESV)”
Joseph’s brother meant to do evil to Joseph, selling him into slavery set off a chain of events that made life pretty awful for Joseph for a good long while, that’s on Joseph’s brothers. Nevertheless, God, in His sovereignly intended those events to accomplish His greater plan. God had a purpose and a plan for the evil acts of Joseph’s brothers.
So, did God decree that Joseph’s brothers do what they did? The text tells us that God had a redemptive intention for the very behaviors that Joseph’s brothers intended for evil.
To your point, some would argue that this means God’s decree includes Joseph’s brothers to committing evil, and in some sense that is the unavoidable conclusion. In God’s plan, Joseph’s brothers did what they did. They did what they did because God was willing for it to happen no matter what philosophy you bring to the table to explain it. Whether God commanded it to happen, planned for it to happen, knew that it would happen in the future and allowed it anyway or knew that it could happen, knew how to prevent it before it could happen and failed to do anything to prevent those events from coming to pass. Furthermore, He allowed it to happen as He saw it happening in progress. Regardless of the philosophy you employ to explain these events you get the same conclusion; Joseph’s brothers sinned against Joseph and God was willing for that to occur.
Regardless, the WCF clearly state that “no violence is offered to the will of the creature…” which preserves a distinction between the evil intentions of the brothers and the divine intentions of the Creator.
Let me bring some clarity by asking a similar question. We recognize responsibility when someone creates or allows the circumstances wherein harm can befall another, can reasonably foresee said harm and having the power to prevent said harm, does nothing to prevent said harm from occurring.
We call that “negligence.”
There is no evil or tragedy that has every befallen any of God’s creatures that God didn’t either create the circumstances or allow the circumstances wherein it could have occurred, could have reasonably foresee that harm that might result from said circumstances and having the power to prevent said harms, allowed them to occur. So why do you not similarly recognize the Open View of God as being a negligent Creator?
God’s sovereignty is a combination of His omniscience and His omnipotence. The only way to escape any of these quandaries is to argue against God’s omnipotence.
The only other solution as I can see it is to allow that God either decrees actively, or at the very least permissively, evil to happen and harm to occur and yet somehow these events serve His purposes. Sometimes we are given little insights into those purposes (like Joseph) other times we are told to stand like a man ‘cause it’s time for God to start asking the questions (like Job).
In either case, that evil becomes part of God’s decree.
Now, I would say that God’s decretive will is clear from the scriptures but the mechanics of God’s decretive will are not flushed out exhaustively in the scriptures and therefore a lot of mental energy is often spent trying to nail God down on the following question (Romans 9:19) without realizing that the only answer we may ever get is the question Paul asks in return (Romans 9:20).
Whatever the approach, you wind up with having to choose between a God who is omnipotent or one who isn't.
Yes, and for the most part I would say they got it right. Though I would consider God’s ordaining to be descripting of both God’s active and passive will but I know that many Calvinists reject that distinction and I am pretty sure Calvin himself got cranky about it.Derf said:The part you left out is:
1. 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. WCF Article 3.1
C’est-La-Vie, I’m not a confessionally minded Calvinist nor do I consider Calvin to be infallible.
I don’t think you can have presupposition two without arriving eventually at presupposition one. If God truly has the power to do whatever He wants to do, then He also has the power to allow only what He wants to allow.Derf said:This was written by a group that struggled valiantly to figure out something--and were unsuccessful. I think they were unsuccessful because of a bad presupposition--the presupposition that God knows the future exhaustively--tied to a good presupposition--that God has the power to do whatever He wants to do.
A God that can make anything He wants come to pass also has the power to effortlessly prevent anything He doesn’t want coming to pass from becoming actuated in history. So, let us grant the open theist assumption, for the sake of argumentation, that God doesn’t exhaustively know what will come to pass. God, at least, knows that nothing will come to pass that He is not willing for it to come to pass because God knows that whatever might come to pass will be shaped by His will, either by His actively interceding or His passively allowing.
For example, God has the power to keep us from stumbling (Jude 1:24). Therefore, God similarly had the power to keep Adam from stumbling, but didn’t. God knew, at least, that Adam might fall, after all God put the instrument of Adam’s fall in the garden. And God knew, at least, that if Adam reached out to take the fruit He would not prevent it even though Jude 1:24 tells us clearly that He could have prevented it.
So whether the decree is an active decree that Adam would stumble or a passive decree to allow Adam to stumble the results are the same, the fall is not outside of God’s will and therefore not outside of God’s decree.
I understand your thoughts on this as I struggled with this same question. The best example that brought me some clarity was the example of Joseph.Derf said:Ordain means to "order" or "decree". If God decrees something, it is most certainly going to come to pass--no one could keep it from doing so. But to say that God is not the author of sin when He unchangeably decrees sin does not seem to me to define a God who knows no sin nor tempts anyone to sin.
Joseph’s response to his brothers is theologically remarkable.
“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen 50:20 ESV)”
Joseph’s brother meant to do evil to Joseph, selling him into slavery set off a chain of events that made life pretty awful for Joseph for a good long while, that’s on Joseph’s brothers. Nevertheless, God, in His sovereignly intended those events to accomplish His greater plan. God had a purpose and a plan for the evil acts of Joseph’s brothers.
So, did God decree that Joseph’s brothers do what they did? The text tells us that God had a redemptive intention for the very behaviors that Joseph’s brothers intended for evil.
Well, the example of Joseph I think helps to frame this issue. Joseph’s words seem very much to preclude the notion that God saw what Joseph’s brothers were doing and then did some divine scurrying about in heaven in order to try and make something good happen despite Joseph’s brothers defying His purpose; His perfect will having been thwarted by the intentions of Joseph’s brothers. To the contrary, Joseph very much indicates that God intended for it to happen and to bring good to many people through it.Derf said:Don't you think decreeing that I will sin is worse than tempting me to sin? Yet God declares He doesn't even do the lesser. So if God therefore knows all things that are going to happen, not because He sees into the future, but because He creates the future (going on to the next statement of Article 5: 2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions), then can He really claim He wasn't responsible for sin?
To your point, some would argue that this means God’s decree includes Joseph’s brothers to committing evil, and in some sense that is the unavoidable conclusion. In God’s plan, Joseph’s brothers did what they did. They did what they did because God was willing for it to happen no matter what philosophy you bring to the table to explain it. Whether God commanded it to happen, planned for it to happen, knew that it would happen in the future and allowed it anyway or knew that it could happen, knew how to prevent it before it could happen and failed to do anything to prevent those events from coming to pass. Furthermore, He allowed it to happen as He saw it happening in progress. Regardless of the philosophy you employ to explain these events you get the same conclusion; Joseph’s brothers sinned against Joseph and God was willing for that to occur.
Derf said:So He doesn't, according to the WCF, just allow things to come to pass, He CAUSES them to come to pass--He decrees ("orders" or "commands") that they will.
Regardless, the WCF clearly state that “no violence is offered to the will of the creature…” which preserves a distinction between the evil intentions of the brothers and the divine intentions of the Creator.
Derf said:Yet without responsibility. We recognize the responsibility of officials when they delegate to lower officials. Why don't we recognize responsibility of the highest official (God), when He DECREES what His subjects will do?
Let me bring some clarity by asking a similar question. We recognize responsibility when someone creates or allows the circumstances wherein harm can befall another, can reasonably foresee said harm and having the power to prevent said harm, does nothing to prevent said harm from occurring.
We call that “negligence.”
There is no evil or tragedy that has every befallen any of God’s creatures that God didn’t either create the circumstances or allow the circumstances wherein it could have occurred, could have reasonably foresee that harm that might result from said circumstances and having the power to prevent said harms, allowed them to occur. So why do you not similarly recognize the Open View of God as being a negligent Creator?
God’s sovereignty is a combination of His omniscience and His omnipotence. The only way to escape any of these quandaries is to argue against God’s omnipotence.
The only other solution as I can see it is to allow that God either decrees actively, or at the very least permissively, evil to happen and harm to occur and yet somehow these events serve His purposes. Sometimes we are given little insights into those purposes (like Joseph) other times we are told to stand like a man ‘cause it’s time for God to start asking the questions (like Job).
In either case, that evil becomes part of God’s decree.
Now, I would say that God’s decretive will is clear from the scriptures but the mechanics of God’s decretive will are not flushed out exhaustively in the scriptures and therefore a lot of mental energy is often spent trying to nail God down on the following question (Romans 9:19) without realizing that the only answer we may ever get is the question Paul asks in return (Romans 9:20).
You are right that I think God’s sovereignty goes all the way down. I don’t think there is anything, any evil thoughts or intentions of the heart in any one of His creatures that God couldn’t not, at the very least, have known (even before the act of creation) could have occurred and that He planned to respond by allowing them to occur rather than act to prevent them. Even the most Open Theist explanation gets us to the same result. Evil happens in the world, and God to some extent decreed that it would happen, so in my mind the question of how precisely God decrees evil to occur when it occurs is somewhat moot.Derf said:How far down into the weeds does this sovereignty go? I think you would say all the way. So every thought that we think and every evil inclination that we have was somehow decreed to happen before the foundation of the world without God taking any responsibility for it?
Whatever the approach, you wind up with having to choose between a God who is omnipotent or one who isn't.
Last edited: