Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Dialogos]

Derf,

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

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.

C’est-La-Vie, I’m not a confessionally minded Calvinist nor do I consider Calvin to be infallible.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

Whatever the approach, you wind up with having to choose between a God who is omnipotent or one who isn't.

 

[Derf]

Hi Dialogos,
Thanks for the well-written response.

Derf,

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.

C’est-La-Vie, I’m not a confessionally minded Calvinist nor do I consider Calvin to be infallible.

That's why I like to point to the Westminster confession, which elders are supposed to confess to in some churches. It helps pin down the beliefs a little.

I've had the response (like yours) a few times where I bring up a disagreement with a particular point, and people say, "I'm not really that kind of Calvinist". Which I suppose I ought to take as a compliment--they they agree with my point.

The point I was trying to make is that if God does not ordain anything because He saw it in the future (which I agree with), and He doesn't do any violence to the will (which I think I agree with, at least in most respects), then He must be ordaining on the basis of His own wisdom, and not on anything else. (I'm pretty sure AMR agrees with me here, and he seems to follow the WCF without apology.)

If God is ordaining things on the basis of His own wisdom, and no one is allowed to do or think differently, then the will is pre-programmed to follow God's decrees from the beginning (and thus no violence, but only puppetry). But that suggests that God's will is already being done on earth as it is in heaven, which Jesus apparently didn't think was the case.

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.

I agree with your second statement, but I don't see why the first follows from it.

But even my attempt at defining the "bad" presupposition (that God knows the future exhaustively), doesn't account for the WCF proposition that God doesn't ordain anything because He sees it as future, but rather that He makes the future come to pass. All of the future. Every little thing in the future. Including the evil thoughts we think. He makes us think them.

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.

Agreed, but...

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.

Does God have the power to keep us from stumbling if we don't give Him that power? In other words, can we stumble anyway, even if God has the power to keep us from doing so? I think, practically, you have to say "Yes". Because we do stumble, yet if God has the power to keep us from stumbling, and He exercises that power, then we would have to say He fails miserably.

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.

Again, I'm trying to show the inconsistency in the WCF. You apparently agree with me that there is one, as you prefer the passive decree explanation.

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.

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.

I think I can do you one better. God was planning this from earlier in Joseph's life. I don't know how early He planned it--probably even before Joseph was born. At least as early as the message to Abraham that his seed would be oppressed by the Egyptians for 400 years, although I would suggest that at that time the full means might not yet have been determined.

I can see that God must have given Joseph the dreams that He knew would infuriate his brothers. And I can see how God could do that and not be the author of sin--the brothers still were responsible for their actions and thoughts. But if their thoughts were preprogrammed to come out a certain way, then they were not responsible for those thoughts. God certainly knows His creation well enough that if He provides information such as Joseph had (the dreams) to jealous humans, then He would expect them to have that kind of reaction.

Would it be possible for one or all of the brothers to have a different reaction? Maybe. Rueben did. And God conveniently left him out of the decision to sell Joseph to the Midianites. God wanted Joseph to go to Egypt. (By the way, I can also see that God might have wanted to chastise Joseph a little for his haughtiness, so He made him a slave and a prisoner for a few years.)

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.

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.

If God wasn't willing for any to sin, then of course, Adam wouldn't have been allowed to eat of the wrong tree. The fact that he was allowed to says that God has a higher purpose for us than Him just preprogramming us--I think it is that He wants us to want to obey Him, without doing violence (wrenching it around to a point where it doesn't look like our will anymore, but His) to our will. But if He preprograms us to do right and do wrong and repent or not repent, the higher purpose is certainly mysterious, if not completely absent.

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.

Yes, it tries anyway.

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?

That higher purpose I mentioned. One where He allows our will to go against His and provides a way for us to repent and return to His will.

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.

I disagree. I don't see it as a quandry, based on the above.

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.

No problem here, especially with the passive part, and probably with the active part, if you are talking about God using His foreknowledge rather than His power.

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.

I think you are equivocating on the evil in men's hearts vs calamitous evil, which God can certainly do to His creation anytime He wants to.

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).

Seems like it always goes back to Rom 9.

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.

As soon as you say "could have occurred" you part from the WCF.

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.

Whatever the approach, you wind up with having to choose between a God who is omnipotent or one who isn't.

I don't think you do. I think you have to choose between a God who is powerless to bring about anything unless He brings about everything, or one Who is not.

 

[Ktoyou]

substantially, meaning peripheral to fundamental tenets. Working towards salvation is outside these, yet I would not say all Catholics are going to hell:wave2: