Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Derf]

Probably needs a bit more attention because as I read it, it is simply saying that a Calvinist is focused on the Free will theists choice.

Yes. To a fault, I would say. But our choice doesn't save us, anymore than Paul saves anybody, as in 1Cor 9:22.

Originally, my statement went no further than to say, for instance, that "Who is saved" depends on who responds to the gospel and free will is the vehicle for the difference. IOW, freewill is your answer. There is an absence in my answer specifically because I don't think it was so much about me choosing, but God choosing me. "Why?" Well, that's the difference I was trying to express here.

I'll have to go back a few posts and remember what my point was here. <sorry>

It isn't that, but rather that the blood of Christ doesn't apply retroactively.

Really? So no old testament saints were saved by Christ's blood? This seems foreign to Calvinism, so I probably misunderstood. Maybe you mean that because they didn't repent, then Christ's blood doesn't save them retroactively. No argument from me if that's the case, but it reinforces my viewpoint (I think).

Scripture?

If scripture can limit God in this area, then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?

Happy New Year, Lon.

 

[Desert Reign]

It is more different than that, there would be many many more presents under the tree than are opened.

Lon, it was my analogy, not yours. I am telling you that there is nothing lucky about the Christmas presents I get from my family. That is the analogy I am drawing. You haven't brought any argument against the comment that the Calvinist doctrine of election requires you to be lucky in order to be saved.

All, in fact, but open theists, it isn't just Calvinists.

So you have no argument that supports the time-eternity worldview then? You are now accepting that that worldview is illogical? My point was that in the world in which we live, there is no moral reason why God should know in advance who will be saved. If you can think of one then please tell us! But if not, then why do you not accept the consequences of this???

My point was to say rather that it is much closer to 'luck of the draw' than Calvinism. I'd think, in scenario, it is more like this for us: God calls, all hear. When the people respond come, there is a present under the tree for all, but no left-overs. Now your comment:

Because the present only has a meaning in a world where it is possible not to receive one. Accepting the inevitable is not a present.

No, it simply leaves another question atf: "How did He know?"

What has God's knowledge of it got to with whether, from your point of view, it was lucky or not? If I were to randomly select an individual from a phone book to give a present to this Christmas, then I would know in advance. But that doesn't change the fact there was neither rhyme or reason in my giving him a present. And really, I wasted my money because it was just a random, meaningless act.

If 25 people, who don't know a thing about each other, are called to an inheritance, it isn't luck that drew them together, whether they knew the reason they were called or not.

If they were in an inheritance, then usually there was a reason why they were in it and that reason is stated in the will or is obvious or may be guessed at. If there was no reason or it is impossible to guess one, then it was luck. In the Calvinist case, not only is there no reason that can be guessed at, it is positively against the doctrine to make such guesses. Thus confirming that luck is indeed the correct caricature of the doctrine.

I agree. It is simply saying "I don't know."

Thank you for saying this. However, in terms of a discussion about doctrine, it is entirely unsatisfactory not to know the answer to obvious questions about your own doctrine. I do not understand why so many Calvinists still stick to their doctrine under these circumstances. In my view, it is illogical, immoral and inconsistent. You know that there is no answer. You know that there is no conceivable answer because the doctrine itself says that. Yet you think it honourable to harbour such inconsistencies and shortcomings as if they were genuine, positive things. And when I say 'you' I am talking about the average Calvinist, who in my experience, just like you, is unable to articulate their doctrine in a way that is self-consistent and open to reason. You remind me a lot of Sarah Connor in the Terminator, trying to get her head around 'temporal physics', failing, dissolving into a pool of femininity as if to excuse her inability to express why the situation confronting her is not an outright impossibility. 'I am just a poor woman, I was not trained in physics...' is what the audience is asked to accept from her. Unfortunately for her, and for all time-travel buffs, along with those same buffs who believe the time-eternity worldview, there is no such rational explanation. There is no logical understanding available in any language, not for physicists, astronomers or mathematicians or theologians, not for Sarah Connors, John Does or budding Einsteins, not for child prodigies or seasoned philosophers. Sarah asks you to accept that there is such an explanation but just that she herself is unable to grasp it. And then because she makes you, the audience, sympathise with her as a poor inarticulate (and desirable) woman, you take her side against all those erudite scientists who you now suppose do have such explanations. It is all a deception: there is no such explanation in any language.

I'm still not understanding, do you mean John Calvin's actions in Geneva?

And not ony him but all the reformers. They either actively persecuted those who they disagreed with, or they condoned such persecution. And not only their opponents, but those whose activities they considered immoral, as well as Jews. They were a cesspool of violence and vengeance and totalinarianism. These were the people who started the reformation going. But you knew this all didn't you?

 

[Derf]

Sounds about right.

Hi G.O.,
That's was a bit unrehearsed, but I'm thinking through it. Is it possible that we were in a state at the beginning where we could live or die by our own choice (going along with or rebelling against God's plan), then went into a state where we could only die, being against God's plan. Finally, we've entered a state where we can once more live or die by our choice? In that sense, we've become like angels, where our choice is an everlasting one, and our final result is the same, too, either eternity with God or eternity without Him.

So I'm wondering if Jesus's death on the cross actually did do something extraordinary for everybody--that He paid the full penalty for sin of everybody. And now the only requirement for being in His presence forever is that we WANT to be with Him. And those that don't, won't.

But where do you put someone that doesn't want to be with an omnipresent being? In a place that is as lacking of His presence as possible (whatever that might mean), and lacking His presence, it also lacks the other things that come with His lordship, like order and things being held together by Him. Is that what hell is, then? A place where we experience the full brunt of the absence of our Maker? I can see why that could be described as "lake of fire" or "outer darkness" or "where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth".

Just some rambling thoughts...

 

[Lon]

Maybe you mean that because they didn't repent, then Christ's blood doesn't save them retroactively. No argument from me if that's the case, but it reinforces my viewpoint (I think).

Interesting point. Retroactive is a difficult concept because it then is able to jump back and forth and time, and such messes with our ability to follow logically.

If scripture can limit God in this area, then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?

Are you an Open Theist?
I believe scripture supports God's definite foreknowledge both logically and implicitly.

Happy New Year, Lon.

Happy New Year to you, Derf

 

[Clete]

Lon,

You shouldn't answer questions with questions like that.

Do you have an answer for his direct question?....

"If scripture can limit God in this area, then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?"​

 

[Lon]

Lon, it was my analogy, not yours. I am telling you that there is nothing lucky about the Christmas presents I get from my family. That is the analogy I am drawing. You haven't brought any argument against the comment that the Calvinist doctrine of election requires you to be lucky in order to be saved.

If you are possessive about it, I really can't say anything about then... :sigh:

So you have no argument that supports the time-eternity worldview then? You are now accepting that that worldview is illogical? My point was that in the world in which we live, there is no moral reason why God should know in advance who will be saved. If you can think of one then please tell us! But if not, then why do you not accept the consequences of this???

Sure I do. There are very VERY few Open Theists in the world, and even most of us, after hearing about it and discussing it on TOL, don't become one. Scripture is logically and implicitly against the Open View as far as I'm concerned and only the majority view is supported by scripture. We've been over this particular point before.

Because the present only has a meaning in a world where it is possible not to receive one. Accepting the inevitable is not a present.

You aren't allowing for it, is all. It is completely in keeping with it.

What has God's knowledge of it got to with whether, from your point of view, it was lucky or not? If I were to randomly select an individual from a phone book to give a present to this Christmas, then I would know in advance. But that doesn't change the fact there was neither rhyme or reason in my giving him a present. And really, I wasted my money because it was just a random, meaningless act.

"Luck" is assumed by you and asserted by you. Nothing (nothing) demands it. It is a strawman upon a strawman, one on the shoulders of the next. You must have big crows in your neck of the woods.

If they were in an inheritance, then usually there was a reason why they were in it and that reason is stated in the will or is obvious or may be guessed at. If there was no reason or it is impossible to guess one, then it was luck. In the Calvinist case, not only is there no reason that can be guessed at, it is positively against the doctrine to make such guesses. Thus confirming that luck is indeed the correct caricature of the doctrine.

:nono: Until the reading of the will, you have no clue and are throwing wild accusation. Imho, this will scenario clearly reveals your problem in thinking as applied to Calvinism as well.

Thank you for saying this. However, in terms of a discussion about doctrine, it is entirely unsatisfactory not to know the answer to obvious questions about your own doctrine. I do not understand why so many Calvinists still stick to their doctrine under these circumstances. In my view, it is illogical, immoral and inconsistent.

:nono: In my family, "because I said so" infuriated two of the other siblings. I learned to live with it, and satisfactorily. "None of your business" was true. It is in this case as well.

You know that there is no answer.

Not until the reading, at any rate.

You know that there is no conceivable answer because the doctrine itself says that.

I'll even say it demands no answer. We couldn't know. It is impossible, under this condition. Speculation would be the best one could do. You do it too, but call it 'luck.' That's speculation. Nothing more.

Yet you think it honourable to harbour such inconsistencies and shortcomings as if they were genuine, positive things.

Yes, but because one trusts the will-giver at that point. It is completely within His character to do good. Genesis 18:25

And when I say 'you' I am talking about the average Calvinist, who in my experience, just like you, is unable to articulate their doctrine in a way that is self-consistent and open to reason.

This is myopic on your part.

You remind me a lot of Sarah Connor in the Terminator, trying to get her head around 'temporal physics', failing, dissolving into a pool of femininity as if to excuse her inability to express why the situation confronting her is not an outright impossibility. 'I am just a poor woman, I was not trained in physics...' is what the audience is asked to accept from her. Unfortunately for her, and for all time-travel buffs, along with those same buffs who believe the time-eternity worldview, there is no such rational explanation.

Perhaps this post redresses that meaningful. If not, the Sarah Connor fallacy is your own. You aren't seeing what is logical and accurate in this case. "Not until the reading of the will" is both logical and sufficient for answer. "Luck" is but a guess.

There is no logical understanding available in any language, not for physicists, astronomers or mathematicians or theologians, not for Sarah Connors, John Does or budding Einsteins, not for child prodigies or seasoned philosophers. Sarah asks you to accept that there is such an explanation but just that she herself is unable to grasp it. And then because she makes you, the audience, sympathise with her as a poor inarticulate (and desirable) woman, you take her side against all those erudite scientists who you now suppose do have such explanations. It is all a deception: there is no such explanation in any language.

None of these intellectual giants 'can' tell you why 25 seemingly unrelated people were called to the will. They all are at the mercies of 'the reading of the will.'

And not ony him but all the reformers. They either actively persecuted those who they disagreed with, or they condoned such persecution. And not only their opponents, but those whose activities they considered immoral, as well as Jews. They were a cesspool of violence and vengeance and totalinarianism. These were the people who started the reformation going. But you knew this all didn't you?

:think: So by 'saints' you mean heretics and cultists... Yowch. That'd certainly open up a can of worms in discussion. I never knew that's what you meant in your sig. :noway:

 

[Lon]

Lon,

You shouldn't answer questions with questions like that.

Do you have an answer for his direct question?....

"If scripture can limit God in this area, then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?"
​

I asked for scripture regarding the "limitless grace of God."

That was his answer, so we are two removed from answering the actual question: "what scripture do you use?"

So, forgetting for a moment, it was a side-step (doesn't bother me nearly as much as it does others, it is part of the way conversation works, if it doesn't get answered and one were unsatisfied, come back to it graciously):

"If scripture can limit God in this area, then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?"

"If scripture can limit god [in expression of grace] then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?"
Because it doesn't. He and you are asking me to believe what 'you believe as open theists' rather than what scripture says.

 

[Desert Reign]

If you are possessive about it, I really can't say anything about then... :sigh:

You can ignore confronting it but it won't go away.

Perhaps this post redresses that meaningful. If not, the Sarah Connor fallacy is your own. You aren't seeing what is logical and accurate in this case. "Not until the reading of the will" is both logical and sufficient for answer. "Luck" is but a guess.
None of these intellectual giants 'can' tell you why 25 seemingly unrelated people were called to the will. They all are at the mercies of 'the reading of the will.'

Lon, I use words to communicate with, which is why I mostly use words in their commonly accepted meanings. This is a typical dictionary definition of luck:

the ​force that ​causes things, ​especially good things, to ​happen to you by ​chance and not as a ​result of ​your own ​efforts or ​abilities:

I see no reason why everything you have said about the election cannot be characterised this way. I think it is a case of what you said in the beginning when you want to rewrite the dictionary to suit your own theological presuppositions. 'Luck' isn't a guess, it's an application of a commonly accepted definition. Calvinism teaches that the election is made independently of anything you do, think, say or are. That's luck. That's what luck means.

:think: So by 'saints' you mean heretics and cultists... Yowch. That'd certainly open up a can of worms in discussion. I never knew that's what you meant in your sig. :noway:

You are free to misrepresent it that way.

 

[Clete]

"If scripture can limit god [in expression of grace] then why not allow scripture to say the other part--that God doesn't know everything that happens before it happens?"
Because it doesn't. He and you are asking me to believe what 'you believe as open theists' rather than what scripture says.

His question was based on you said. You said that it is Scripture that limits God's grace. His question followed from that.

 

[Lon]

You can ignore confronting it but it won't go away.

No, but "My ball" or "My analogy" leaves "me" deciding whether I want to play with the kid or not....

Lon, I use words to communicate with, which is why I mostly use words in their commonly accepted meanings. This is a typical dictionary definition of luck:

And I rejected your 'application' of it here, not the definition of Luck. I don't believe in luck.

I see no reason why everything you have said about the election cannot be characterised this way. I think it is a case of what you said in the beginning when you want to rewrite the dictionary to suit your own theological presuppositions. 'Luck' isn't a guess, it's an application of a commonly accepted definition. Calvinism teaches that the election is made independently of anything you do, think, say or are. That's luck. That's what luck means.

:nono: Luck throws in 'chance.' It is thus, and well demonstrated by you, a caricature strawman you want[ed] to burn down. Okay, it is down. It isn't Calvism however. The ONLY one interested in the strawman is the one who rejects what the strawman 'stood for,' to them, anyway. "Congratulations, you are not a Calvinist?"

You are free to misrepresent it that way.

Do you have an instance of those ones 'not' being heretical???

 

[Lon]

His question was based on you said. You said that it is Scripture that limits God's grace. His question followed from that.

Because it doesn't [imply or say that].

scripture supports God's definite foreknowledge both logically and implicitly.

 

[Desert Reign]

And I rejected your 'application' of it here, not the definition of Luck. I don't believe in luck. :nono: Luck throws in 'chance.' It is thus, and well demonstrated by you, a caricature strawman you want[ed] to burn down. Okay, it is down. It isn't Calvism however.

You can't say that it isn't Calvinism because you don't know.

Chance: the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause.

the way that events happen when they are not planned or controlled by people.

the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled

This is exactly what Calvinism teaches about the election. It teaches that you cannot know what God's intention or motive is as to why he elects one person and not another. That is chance by this commonly accepted definition. Since it cannot be known, it is certainly not obvious either. You can't predict it, understand it or control it. Chance. Just because it happens to be your God doing it, makes no difference. People who believe their lives are controlled by fate are no different from you. Your future is no more predictable than theirs is.
You have a problem. You are in denial of obvious truths. Take heart: you are not alone.

 

[musterion]

I see no reason why everything you have said about the election cannot be characterised this way.

Minor point, DR, not a disagreement.

I've seen Calvinists (as you probably have too) deny all relation to "luck" because - and this is where their philosophy gets impenetrably dense - God could NEVER have done anything other than elect them. Why not? Because He DID elect them, and that from eternity past. So luck, fortune, fate, etc, had nothing to do with it in the sense of better fortune than those who are reprobated.

Now don't ask me if every Calvinist holds that position, I have no idea if they all do (or if they'd admit it if they do). But in a roundabout way, those who do are automatically admitting to ANOTHER a point they'll always deny: that they were never lost and bound for Hell before God quickened them to hear and believe the Gospel...by virtue of election, they never were in any danger of being lost. At all.

Which in turn proves it's not hearing and believing the Gospel that they really think saves them; it's election that saves them. Faith is thereby shown to be merely a technicality after the fact of salvation.

And that's a false gospel in itself.

It's a self-contradicting logic loop, strangling them on the vines of their own philosophical jungle. But there it is.

Just thought it'd be interesting to point it out.

 

[Lon]

You can't say that it isn't Calvinism because you don't know.

Er, except what you shove on me?

This is exactly what Calvinism teaches about the election.

:nono: We are both talking about 'choice' vs 'chance.' Rather, we are arguing over 'who' has that choice. You are building a strawman steering away from God's choice, for whatever reason. I OFTEN find the OV building strawmen. MAD? Not so much. I try to pay attention to who is who on TOL.

It teaches that you cannot know what God's intention or motive is as to why he elects one person and not another.

"Chosen before the foundation of the earth" is not, followed by 'how.' 1 Peter 1:20 Ephesians 1:4

That is chance by this commonly accepted definition.

No, it is a forced accusation. Open theism attacks Calvinism so blatantly, it often doesn't care if it is logical or true, just that it 'sticks' for however shallow or long that lasts (you shoot for just that kind of shallow and petty in your last paragraph here).

Since it cannot be known, it is certainly not obvious either. You can't predict it, understand it or control it.

I can't do it with traffic either, but I reject that chance leads to accidents or there would be no such thing as liability.

Chance. Just because it happens to be your God doing it, makes no difference.

:nono: Not logical. Go ahead and assert it is, however. I'm calling your critical thinking skills into question. I will never understand why many of you open theists go for jugulars and supposed easy kills. Free-will vs fate has been debated for centuries and you fairly newbies on the planet think you suddenly are smarter, wiser, and better equipped than generations before you. I have never entertained that thought, and I'm a fairly bright fellow. Solomon told us there was nothing new under the sun. You should take a bit of time to read him in your bible imho. You guys seem oddly overtly optimistic against history and scripture to me :think:

People who believe their lives are controlled by fate are no different from you.

Not quite accurate. Here, be informed today instead of prone to wild and flying.

Your future is no more predictable than theirs is.

First of all, agreed, no it certainly is not. "Prediction" carries a tone of what is unknown/uncertain. Romans 10:13

You have a problem.

argumentum ad hominem

You are in denial of obvious truths.

Argument by assertion Proof by assertion

Take heart: you are not alone.

Pyrrhic victory

 

[Desert Reign]

Minor point, DR, not a disagreement.

I've seen Calvinists (as you probably have too) deny all relation to "luck" because - and this is where their philosophy gets impenetrably dense - God could NEVER have done anything other than elect them. Why not? Because He DID elect them, and that from eternity past. So luck, fortune, fate, etc, had nothing to do with it in the sense of better fortune than those who are reprobated.

Thanks. And I agree with all your other points. My issue with luck is that it is relative. It is a term used in regard to human things. Given the doctrine of election, I daresay it could be argued that God had a particular purpose in choosing Lon against Pol Pot. But from the human point of view, it is luck.
Now, I am sure the Calvinist will retort that we should not look at it from the human point of view, but this is where they shoot themselves in the foot: because ther doctrine prevents them from looking at it from God's point of view. All their doctrine, all theology, is human. It uses human language, it is devised by humans, it is for the benefit of humans (it certainly isn't for the benefit of God...)
So my characterisation of election as luck is not a comment on the way God elects. Of course it isn't, because I don't believe there is such a thing as election (in the Calvinist sense)! My comment is about how humans must view election, given the particular Calvinist doctrine of it.

 

[Lon]

Thanks. And I agree with all your other points. My issue with luck is that it is relative. It is a term used in regard to human things. Given the doctrine of election, I daresay it could be argued that God had a particular purpose in choosing Lon against Pol Pot. But from the human point of view, it is luck.

"There is a reason, I don't know what it is (yet.)"
"Well, I guess we were lucky!"
"No, chosen."
"Why?"
"Waiting on that answer."
"Wow were we lucky!"

You like to assert without substantiation. A lot.

 

[musterion]

Now, I am sure the Calvinist will retort that we should not look at it from the human point of view, but this is where they shoot themselves in the foot: because ther doctrine prevents them from looking at it from God's point of view.

The real auto-footshot there are these primordial counsels and decrees of God which, as the basis for all of Calvinism, you're expected to accept as Scripture, but without their being found in Scripture.

 

[Desert Reign]

"There is a reason, I don't know what it is (yet.)"
"Well, I guess we were lucky!"
"No, chosen."

Lon, you are missing the obvious. I am not claiming that God did not choose us. But God's choosing of certain individuals instead of certain other individuals is a choice based on luck. That is what luck means. It means that it doesn't depend on anything to do with the individual chosen.

Just because you don't like the word luck, doesn't change its meaning. Luck is what you believe. You can protest away but these words exist. Don't blame me, blame the dictionary. If you don't like it so much then get a new belief that isn't based on luck. According to your belief, you are one of the lucky ones elected before the foundation of the world. This is fine for you so long as you are saved because you can think of yourself as one of those lucky ones. And because you are saved, you have a good measure of personal comfort, which is perfectly good and right. But you are transferring that comfort in God onto your own doctrine as if it justified it. It doesn't.

 

[Derf]

Not quite accurate. Here, be informed today instead of prone to wild and flying.

Hey Lon,
I don't think I get your point with your comment and reference. Are you saying Calvinists do believe in a type of fatalism, but it's ok because Arminians do, too? Or are you saying Calvinists don't believe in a type of fatalism?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The real auto-footshot there are these primordial counsels and decrees of God which, as the basis for all of Calvinism, you're expected to accept as Scripture, but without their being found in Scripture.

You tend to be quite superficial in making sweeping generalizations about this or that when it suits your agenda. You claim to know what you are talking about but continue to give evidence to the contrary.

If you are not finding testimony within Scripture as to the decree of God, perhaps you should dig a wee bit deeper. The matter of the decree is not something adiaphorous. Start with: Isaiah 46:10

Then maybe move to Psalm 2:7 (do you see the word decree?), Ephesians 3:11 "eternal purpose.," Acts 2:23 "determinate counsel and foreknowledge," Ephesians 1:9 the mystery of His "will," Romans 8:29 He also did predestinate, Ephesians 1:9 His "good pleasure."

When discussing God's decree orthodox Christendom will say decree as it is His "counsel" signifying it is consummately wise (Isaiah 46:10). The decree is called God’s "will" showing He was under no control, but acted according to His own pleasure. When man’s will is the rule of his conduct, it is capricious and unreasonable; but wisdom is always associated with "will" in the Divine proceedings, and accordingly, God’s decree is said to be "the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).

As Berkhof noted:

Though we often speak of the decrees of God in the plural, yet in its own nature the divine decree is but a single act of God. This is already suggested by the fact that the Bible speaks of it as a prothesis, a purpose or counsel. It follows also from the very nature of God. His knowledge is all immediate and simultaneous rather than successive like ours, and His comprehension of it is always complete. And the decree that is founded on it is also a single, all-comprehensive, and simultaneous act. As an eternal and immutable decree it could not be otherwise. There is, therefore, no series of decrees in God, but simply one comprehensive plan, embracing all that comes to pass. Our finite comprehension, however, constrains us to make distinctions, and this accounts for the fact that we often speak of the decrees of God in the plural. This manner of speaking is perfectly legitimate, provided we do not lose sight of the unity of the divine decree, and of the inseparable connection of the various decrees as we conceive of them.

The decree of God is His purpose or determination with respect to future things. We have used the singular number as Scripture does (Rom 8:28, Eph 3:11), because there was only one act of His infinite mind about future things. But we speak as if there had been many, because our minds are only capable of thinking of successive revolutions, as thoughts and occasions arise, or in reference to the various objects of His decree, which being many seem to us to require a distinct purpose for each one. But an infinite understanding does not proceed by steps, from one stage to another: "Known unto God are all His works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18).
​

More concerning the decree of God (courtesy of Berkhof and others):

Spoiler

God's Decrees Concern Everything

The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception: whatever is done in time, was foreordained before time began. God’s purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil, although with reference to the latter we must be careful to state that while God is the Orderer and Controller of sin, He is not the Author of it in the same way that He is the Author of good. Sin could not proceed from a holy God by positive and direct creation, but only by decretive permission and negative action. God’s decree is as comprehensive as His government, extending to all creatures and all events. It was concerned about our life and death; about our state in time, and our state in eternity. As God works all things after the counsel of His own will, we learn from His works what His counsel is (was), as we judge of an architect’s plan by inspecting the building which was erected under his directions.

God's Decrees Are Comprehensive

God did not merely decree to make man, place him upon the earth, and then leave him to his own uncontrolled guidance; instead, He fixed all the circumstances in the lot of individuals, and all the particulars which will comprise the history of the human race from its commencement to its close. He did not merely decree that general laws should be established for the government of the world, but He settled the application of those laws to all particular cases. Our days are numbered, and so are the hairs of our heads. We may learn what is the extent of the Divine decrees from the dispensations of providence, in which they are executed. The care of Providence reaches to the most insignificant creatures, and the most minute events—the death of a sparrow, and the fall of a hair.

The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general embraced in the divine decrees. Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph 1:11.
They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30.
Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13.
Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17.
As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.

God's decrees are eternal

Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.

To suppose any of them to be made in time, is to suppose that some new occasion has occurred, some unforeseen event or combination of circumstances has arisen, which has induced the Most High to form a new resolution. This would argue that the knowledge of the deity is limited, an that He is growing wiser in the progress of time—which would be horrible blasphemy. No man who believes that the Divine understanding is infinite, comprehending the past, the present, and the future, will ever assent to the erroneous doctrine of temporal decrees. God is not ignorant of future events which will be executed by human volitions; He has foretold them in innumerable instances, and prophecy is but the manifestation of His eternal prescience. Scripture affirms that believers were chosen in Christ before the world began (Eph. 1:4), yea, that grace was "given" to them then (2 Tim. 1:9).

They are wise

Wisdom is shown in the selection of the best possible ends and of the fittest means of accomplishing them. That this character belongs to the decrees of God is evident from what we know of them. They are disclosed to us by their execution, and every proof of wisdom in the works of God is a proof of the wisdom of the plan, in conformity to which they are performed. As the Psalmist declared, "O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all" (Ps. 104:24). It is indeed but a very small part of them which falls under our observation, yet, we ought to proceed here as we do in other cases, and judge of the whole by the specimen, of what is unknown, by what is known. He who perceives the workings of admirable skill in the parts of a machine which he has an opportunity to examine, is naturally led to believe that the other parts are equally admirable. In like manner should we satisfy our minds as to God’s works when doubts obtrude themselves upon us, and repel the objections which may be suggested by something which we cannot reconcile to our notions of what is good and wise. When we reach the bounds of the finite and gaze toward the mysterious realm of the infinite, let us exclaim. "O the depth of the riches! both of the wisdom and knowledge of God" (Rom. 11:33).

They are Free

"Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counselor hath taught Him? With whom took He counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of judgment, and taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding?" (Isa. 40:13,14). God was alone when He made His decrees, and His determinations were influenced by no external cause. He was free to decree or not to decree, and to decree one thing and not another. This liberty we must ascribe to Him who is supreme, independent, and sovereign in all His doings.

They are Sovereign

Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.

They are absolute and unconditional

The execution of them is not suspended upon any condition which may, or may not be, performed. In every instance where God has decreed an end, He has also decreed every means to that end. The One who decreed the salvation of His elect also decreed to work faith in them (2 Thess. 2:13). "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 46:10): but that could not be, if His counsel depended upon a condition which might not be performed. But God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).

Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27; 46:10; Rom. 9:11; Isa. 46:9.

They include the means

Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.

They preserve human responsibility

Scripture plainly teaches that man is a responsible creature and answerable for his actions. And if our thoughts are formed from God’s Word the maintenance of the one will not lead to the denial of the other. That there is a real difficulty in defining where the one ends and the other begins, is freely granted. This is ever the case where there is a conjunction of the Divine and the human. Real prayer is indited by the Spirit, yet it is also the cry of a human heart. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, yet were they written by men who were something more than machines in the hand of the Spirit. Christ is both God and man. He is Omniscient, yet "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52). He was Almighty, yet was "crucified through weakness" (2 Cor. 13:4). He was the Prince of life, yet He died. High mysteries are these, yet faith receives them unquestioningly.

Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.

They determine the free actions of men

Acts 4:27, 28; Eph. 2:10.

They secure conversion and the conditions for final salvation

Eph. 2:8; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25.

They render events certain

Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19

Objections to the Doctrine of the Decrees

They are really objections to God's Foreknowledge

"Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them; that is, He either is willing they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them.

Finally, attempt to assume and then contemplate the opposite. To deny the Divine decrees would be to predicate a world and all its concerns regulated by undesigned chance or blind fate. Then what peace, what assurance, what comfort would there be for our poor hearts and minds? What refuge would there be to fly to in the hour of need and trial? None at all. There would be nothing better than the black darkness and abject horror of atheism. O my reader, how thankful should we be that everything is determined by infinite wisdom and goodness! What praise and gratitude are due unto God for His Divine decrees. It is because of them that "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28). Well may we exclaim, "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom 11:36)."

"It is inconsistent with the moral freedom of man"

"Man is a free agent with the power of rational self-determination. He can reflect upon, and in an intelligent way choose, certain ends, and can also determine his action with respect to them. The decree of God however, carries with it necessity. God has decreed to effectuate all things or, if He has not decreed that, He has at least determined that they must come to pass. He has decided the course of man's life for him. In answer to this objection it may be said that the Bible certainly does not proceed on the assumption that the divine decree is inconsistent with the free agency of man. It clearly reveals that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that the actors are none the less free and therefore responsible for their acts, Gen. 50:19,20; Acts 2:23; 4:27,28. It was determined that Jews should bring about the crucifixion of Jesus; yet they were perfectly free in their wicked course of action, and were held responsible for this crime. There is not a single indication is Scripture that the inspired writers are conscious of a contradiction in connection with these matters. They never make an attempt to harmonize the two. This may well restrain us from assuming a contradiction here, even if we cannot reconcile both truths."

"It takes away all motives for human exertion"

"This objection is to the effect that people will naturally say that, if all things are bound to happen as God has determined them, they need not concern themselves about the future and need not make any efforts to attain salvation. But this is hardly correct. In the case of people who speak after that fashion this is generally the mere excuse of indolence and disobedience. The divine decrees are not addressed to men as a rule of action, and cannot be such a rule, since their contents become known only through, and therefore after, their realization. There is a rule of action, however, embodied in the law and in the gospel, and this puts men under obligation to employ the means which God has ordained."

"It makes God the author of sin"

"This, if true, would naturally be an insuperable objection, for God cannot be the author of sin. This follows equally from Scripture, Ps. 92:15; Eccl. 7:29; Jas. 1:13; 1 John 1:5, from the law of God which prohibits all sin, and from the holiness of God. But the charge is not true; the decree merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons, He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit, in distinction from a decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency. No difficulty attaches to such a decree which does not also attach to a mere passive permission of what He could very well prevent, such as the Arminians, who generally raise this objection, assume. The problem of God's relation to sin remains a mystery for us, which we are not able to solve. It may be said, however, that His decree to permit sin, while it renders the entrance of sin into the world certain, does not mean He takes winsome delight in it; but only that He deemed it wise, for the purpose of His self-revelation, to permit moral evil, however abhorrent it may be to His nature."

See also:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/francis-turretin/the-decrees-of-god/

Scripture stands against your view that the decree is absent therein. No matter what your view, open theist, Arminian, or whatever, you are compelled from the evidence of Scripture to admit that God takes His own counsel and declares what will be. This is the decree of God and you can debate the content of the decree if you will, but you cannot deny the ample evidence of it within Scripture. If you have a shred of integrity, you must concede the point that you were in error in waving off the existence of the decree of God. If you do not you are left with the Watchmaker God, the progenitor of the open theist's Survivor® God, who wound up everything and then sits back to watch what will happen. I doubt you want to be in that category of error, so please concede your error.

AMR