It makes no difference that moral agents did not yet exist in created time from God's perspective. He has decreed what will be, and, as God, it cannot not be. You simply do not understand this issue as you continue to raise it.
I understand it enough to agree with what you've written here. Do I need to understand it further so that I somehow disagree with it?
It follows, then, that:
If God decrees what will be (I don't deny that He can and often does), and there are no other agents involved in the decree when it is decreed (neither of us believe that there were in the case we're discussing), and God doesn't somehow use prior information ("see" into the future) to inform His decrees, then the only way that God can ensure His decrees will stand is by enforcing them with his power (I think you agree with me on this, too).
His power, then, is His way of enforcing His decrees, and therefore, any decrees that He makes are then brought about by His own power and nothing else, because, as God, it cannot
not be (to quote a very wise man).
So, if
everything is decreed, and
everything decreed is enforced by His power, then His power is the agent that
makes sure sin happens.
I provided a link that details (with plenty of Scripture) the decree. Did you actually read it?
Um, I actually said I read it, and I commented on a part of it. Is this what you mean below by "talking past one another"?
You continue to ignore the fact that the decree establishes man's free will (liberty of spontaneity). Hence it incorporates the person's own volitions with no violence done to them. How much reading have you done on matter of the decree of God? Perhaps you could start
here. Until you have a more solid grounding in the topic we will continue to talk past one another.
Talking past one another is a two-way street, I suppose. Is solid grounding what I need, or are you saying that until I agree with your perspective we will continue to talk past each other? I didn't see anything new in Pink's introductory article. I read through some of Brakel's, too. I'll peruse more as I have some time, perhaps.
I have no problem with the statements. Your continued claim that God's decree makes him the author of sin is grievous error. God is not the doer of sin. Moral agents are responsible for their actions. God's decree includes their acting per their own volitional liberty of spontaneity. You want to seek to determine "how" God pulls that off. No answer from me, others, or Scripture will be forthcoming. It simply has not been revealed (Deut. 29:29).
My claim was not that God is the author of sin, but that the statements, if applied to everything, make God the author of sin. The logical conclusion is that either the statements are in error, or that their application to everything is in error (or that God really is the author of sin, which I thought, until I read your "transcendence" paragraph, that we both reject, though I'll assume for now you still do). Since we both agree on the statements, only the applicability is up for discussion. (Brakel, in your link above, confirms that your position is that the application is to EVERYTHING:
Brakel said:
In decreeing creation, God has eternally purposed and decreed within Himself where, when, how, and of what nature each creature should be, and what each should do and encounter.
But Brakel also makes the statement that the doctrine of God's decrees about EVERYTHING can be "deduced from the Word of God". Is that because it isn't explicitly stated? And if "deduce" means to "arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion", as Google says it does, why does it then take precedence over other things, potentially contradictory, that are also deduced from the Word of God?
Brakel also quotes Job 23:14, "For he
performeth [the thing that is]
appointed for me: and many such [things are] with him" which affirms my assertion that the things God decrees, He actually performs. If, then, God decrees someone (like Job, for instance) will sin, Brakel seems to think that God will perform that in Job.
I'm not seeking, by the way, to determine
how God pulls of something that I don't believe God is trying to pull off.
The difference between levels, then, may have moral, as well as metaphysical, significance. It may explain why the writers of Scripture, who do not hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, do not accuse God of wrongdoing. The relationship between God and us, of course, is different in some respects from that between an author and his characters. Most significantly, we are real and Macbeth is not. But between God and us there is a vast difference in the kind of reality and in relative status. God is the absolute controller of and authority over nature and history. He is the lawgiver, and we receive his laws. He is the head of the covenant; we are the servants. He has devised the creation for his own glory; we seek his glory, rather than our own. He makes us as the potter makes pots, for his own purposes. He has many rights and prerogatives we do not. Do these differences not put God in a different moral category as well?
I think the difference is in authority. God can kill a human, because He made humans, thus they belong to Him. A human can't kill a human, because humans belong to God, not to other humans.
The reason, in my mind, that God's distinction between humans is given in several places as one Who does not lie, is because it is the one thing where sin would be obvious with God. He can't murder, as described above. He can't steal, because everything came from Him. He obviously wouldn't worship any creature lower than Himself, since He made them all. He DECIDED to take the day of rest, giving us a pattern. He can't disobey parents or covet or commit adultery. The only thing He could possibly do, I think, that could be called "sin" is to lie. To tell us something that isn't true. So then, if He gives information that changes contradictorily, the only way to interpret it without Him lying is if the information is true in both cases, and the circumstances have changed. If both cases were about the future, then the "future" has changed. If the "future" changes in any respect, then God did not decree both of those "futures", else He would have lied. (Hezekiah's sickness is in my mind, here.)
The transcendence of God plays a significant role in biblical responses to the problem of evil. Because God is who he is, the covenant Lord, he is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice. He is the judge, and we are not. Very often in Scripture, when something happens that calls God’s goodness into question, he pointedly refrains from explaining. Indeed, he often rebukes those people who question him. Job demanded an interview with God, so that he could ask God the reasons for his sufferings (Job 23:1-7;31:35-37). But when he met God, God asked the questions: “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me” (Job 38:3). The questions mostly revealed Job’s ignorance about God’s creation: if Job does not understand the ways of the animals, how can he presume to call God’s motives into question? He does not even understand earthly things; how can he presume to debate heavenly things? God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures.
Then why is there a problem when I suggest that He is the author of evil in your view? You've just said that nothing is sin for God, because we don't know His motives, and therefore God
cannot sin. Do you really think that God's inability to sin has to do with the definition of sin for God, and not due to his character?
There is nothing that is not determined, including, contrary to open theism, that which will exist, the future.
A bold statement. Does stating it establish it?
One more comment from the Free Grace Broadcaster Tract:
Martin Lloyd Jones disappointed me a bit when he added to scripture in saying (my underlining), "Before they were ever born,
before they were ever conceived, God had chosen Jacob and not Esau." Is it necessary to add to scripture to win such an argument? Then it seems the points do not stand on their own merit and on scripture.
Derf
