Reformed theologians, please help me

[childeye]

What exactly is a reformed theologian?

 

[Danus]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

Hello beathweak.

You have a couple of things going on here with your post, but I think I can help you reconcile it. The subject matter is once again "mans freewill". Seems this is usually where the problem lies for most in understanding predestination.

Not all reformist are of the Calvin nature. John Wesley for example was a strict Armenian. In any case, Calvin is not the author of the thoughts you've posed. You need to go back to Agustin, but before we go there let me say that it is a mistake to look at the verse Romans 8:19-21 as God literally making one man destine for judgment and one for salvation, or that that is the what the so called "Calvinist" are saying when it come to predestination. Although that verse is sometimes used.

So what you are really trying to understand is freewill and how that relates to predestination, and how that relates to salvation. I've no doubt you understand the Armenian view because that one is pretty straight forward, but it's the "Calvin" view (for lack of a better term) that has you stumped, because that one is mind boggling. However, if you want to understand it; the reformed view, the one Luther, and Edwards, and of cores John Calvin, and many others to include Paul, and Agustin knew and understood, you have to start with an understanding of mans FREEWILL first.

The better teachers, insomuch as writings, are Johnathan Edwards and maybe Luther. Calvin is good to, but I'd start with Edwards and Luther. SO, I have a link for you that will help shed some light on this age old argument. In this link you will learn about Pelagius and Augustine and then Johnathan Edwards. This will not clear up the issue totally, but it will give you a good basis to start understanding the correct view concerning mas freewill, predestination and how that relates to salvation.
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Tchividjian.Edwards and Free Will.html

 

[glorytoGod]

Hello beathweak,
I'm not sure how well your question has been answered yet. but there are a few things i would like to contribute. All things are for the glory of God. no matter what we do. His glory in infinite and we must glorify Him. following that perspective, He also desires us to magnify his glory. Now imagine that his glory is the sun, and you have a mirror, if you reflect the sun at a wall, you probably wont see anything, because that sun is already hitting the wall, but if you reflect it at a box, or a darker area, where the sun is weaker, it looks brighter. the same is in creation, if the whole world were perfect, there would be no area for our Christian lives to shine, but because were surrounded with sin, we can shine brighter for Gods glory. Not that God NEEDS sin to be glorified, but sin is the absence of God, so when we sin, then repent, or see others sin, ad correct them, we are giving God more glory because of that challenge, than if we were a perfect community of saved people, with no opportunities like that. Awhile ago I had the same question, and that's how i resolved it.

 

[chessman]

I am extremely confused. … I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. ... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

It would be helpful to know exactly what two sets of Scripture you feel pose a contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility for his sin. It may be that the contradiction appears because of an incorrect interpretation of one or more of these Scriptures, or what you’ve been told that these Scriptures mean erroneously.
From your original post you’ve not stated that you see a contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s “free willâ€. Great. I’d estimate that most non-reformed Christians actually have this as their primary reason for avoiding a reformed theology. They want God to be sovereign and see that written all over the Bible. However, they want to be sovereign too. At least sovereign over their actions. Problem is that’s not in the Bible. That particular apparent contradiction is easily answered. You even provide one such area within Scripture that answers that objection (Romans 8).
So on to your particular apparent contradiction; “how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin� Where does the Bible teach or say this?
You mention James 1:13. That’s about God testing us and for our own good, I might add. Much like an Algebra test or medical test is for our own good (not His of course). So I don’t see where that Scripture contradicts reformed theology or any other Scripture. Especially since we all fail the tests and that points us to our only hope of salvation for our failures (Christ, God).
I believe what you may be struggling with is the same rhetorical question Paul asks in Romans 9:19 “19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault?†In other words, it’s not fair that sinners fail these tests since you made me this way.

1st, so what if it weren’t fair. I’m being a little flippant here admittedly. However, again, I’d ask for some Scriptural contradictions toward reformed theology.

2nd, Paul already answered this objection for us Christians: Romans 8 1-3 â€There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh…â€

3rd, then is it fair toward those outside of Christ? For those that, yes, use their “freewill†and reject Christ. I cannot be the judge of the fairness of that. I highly suspect it is "fair" and just. However, I do know the reason He’s created those outside of Christ; Romans 9:23 “in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy[Christians], which he has prepared beforehand [predestined] for glory—

Anyway, I just don’t see any contradictions with a reformed theology.

 

[vocalyocal]

you seem to be getting the truth, but the error is trying to pick a side.............the real truth is both sides are correct, and the truth lies squarely in the middle, neither side is correct without the otherside being reconized...............like most false doctrines taking any one point to the extreme is where truth is lost

 

[chessman]

I agree that God allows and even planned (ordained) unpleasant situations to happen to people.

Great. There’s so, so many Scriptures that support this truth that I will not bother to list any. However, I suspect Joel Osteen or Oprah might disagreeJ Oh, that was an unhappy thought wasn’t it? I hope I don’t get a speeding ticket tomorrow because of it.
And Vocalyocal, I should point out that aligning our beliefs halfway between what the Bible says about this subject and what JO or O says about it, doesn’t get us closer to the truth, but rather a good bit away from it.

… but the error is trying to pick a side.............the real truth is both sides are correct, and the truth lies squarely in the middle, neither side is correct without the otherside being reconized…

What I have a hard time accepting is that He claims to not be the tempter of evil (James 1:13).

…
James 1:13 clearly states that it’s not God “tempting†when evil is being performed. I accept that and don’t have a hard time doing so. If you are looking for the truth, as you seem to be, then you are on the right path to accept James 1:13 for exactly what it says. God is 100% evil free (unlike us of course). So where is there any conflict? I suppose you mean with God ordaining the events that led to a verse like Genesis 50:20 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. So you struggle with why in the world would God have allowed it (even ordained it) in the first place? In fact, I find the solution right there in that verse. God meant it [allowed the freewill choices of Joseph’s brothers to take place] for good. But that doesn’t discount the fact that Joseph’s brothers meant it precisely for evil [and thusly deserve punishment for it]. I just simply don’t see any conflict with these two truths.

If he preordains every action that a person makes then it doesn't matter if Satan or man's sin-nature is sinning because it couldn't happen in any other way due to the fact that God said it needed to happen.

…
1st, He does preordain every action [see your first statement above]. 2nd, why does it not matter? It does matter, in my way of viewing events/justice. God’s will is that we [the elect] come to a saving faith in Him [by His grace]. God has saved me from the punishment of my sin(s), not Satan’s. So, it does matter who is doing the “sinningâ€. Adam’s sin matters, my sins matter, all the way down the line.

This leader that tells the hit-man who to kill is still ultimately just as guilty for the murder as the hit-man is because the leader decreed it.

… What if the “whackieâ€, the victim, deserved to die in the first place for his sins? Wouldn’t that make a better analogy to the Biblical truth? What if a nation, say Nazi Germany, deserved to be stopped from their evil actions. Wouldn’t it be "fair" for God to instruct sinners to take care of that? He might even be teaching a life-lesson in the process, to the whole world and for the rest of history to learn from (even those that are not elect). Your analogy breaks down since God is the giver as well as the taker of life (all life). It’s His life to take in the first place. And all our lives do deserve death because of sin. All except One! Your analogy assumes the victim is sinless.

Could an explanation of this this be that God does indeed sometimes decree (ordain) that we will do things that go against His laws (such as the annihilation of people's in the OT via His followers when we're told to love one another as ourselves)? It seems that there have been exceptions to His laws before.

… Which is why I mentioned Nazi Germany. Murder is the unjustified taking of life. Not the taking for life in general. When we defend ourselves or our loved ones, we are not murdering. God could very well be defending his people, by ordaining Joseph be thrown into a pit. BTW, I thought Mondar’s explanation of Reformed Theology’s solution to “apparent contradictions†not real contradictions within his post(s) were spot on.

This could also be explained by Paul saying "Then it is not I that still commits the sin, but the man within me that sins"? In other words, some sins HAVE to happen because God said they had to happen.

…
Remember Paul as says;

Romans 5:16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

And Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law [God’s good word] sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. … 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

​

He says all this as a prelude to:

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.
​

So (pun intended) to summarize an argument Paul has been making since at least Romans 5 (if not Romans 1):

21 So I find this law at work: Although I [an elect person] want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
​

Therefore when a believer still sins, it's because God is making the man sin (through the means of Satan/flesh) therefore we aren't responsible for those sins?

Wrong and wrong. 1. Paul says it’s evil that makes him still sin (not God). 2. The wages of sin is death. Period. We are just as responsible for the sins we commit prior to “believing†as we are after “believingâ€. It’s just that Christ paid the wages (penalty) for both types! Funny how God knows both our past and present and future sins.

This could also clarify what the bible tells us that a believer can't sin (or continue in sin) if he is saved (I always thought this verse referred to habitual sin, but I could see it reinterpreted in a more natural way... a way that doesn't imply something to the text).

Umm, you have to point that verse out to me. I’ve never read that one.

Let me know if you see something wrong with my theory.

1. Believers don’t stop sinning. Even Paul.
2. It took Christ’s atonement to pay for my pre-believing and my post-believing sins.

 

[beartheweak]

Chessman, I agree with most of what you said there. I am well aware of Romans 9:18-21 and I understand that to mean exactly what you understand it to mean. Still, if you agree with me that God creates circumstances that make it "irresistible" (Romans 9:19) to the point where we have no other choice but to sin then you should also be able to see how that would ultimately mean 100% of the reason we sin is because God made us (albeit maybe not directly, but indirectly through Satan- He is still the ultimate cause of it). So then the contradiction I see in reformed theology flows like this:

1) The bible appears to tell us that God ultimately made us sin because He obviously planned it.
2) The bible also appears to tell us there is no injustice in God.
3) Reformists agree with premise 1 AND premise 2.
4) I'm still not understanding why that isn't a contradiction. God made us sin but He eternally punishes us as though we are responsible for it.

There are all kinds of mish-mashes of free will and God's sovereignty in theory. Yet, if one is to merge those two opposing theories then we are left with a contradiction no matter what. How could God have sovereignly planned the entire history of humanity from the beginning when humans have a free-will choice in the mix?

The only possibilities that I can see are these:
1) We make history on our own, God takes no hand in writing any history. The problem with this is it seems to be the least biblical position as He prophesied certain, specific things to come to pass and all the verses that witness to God's sovereignty.
2) God completely writes all of history, humans take no hand in writing any history as we just follow the plan that God has ordained. This definitely seems more biblical than premise 1, but has a contradiction (as far as I can tell) as outlined in the above points.
3) We are not technically held responsible for our sins because all of them were planned to happen by God Himself. Instead, God, the potter, can do as He would with the clay and make vessels that would be destined to suffer in a form of torment in Hell to demonstrate God's wrath in a final act. Likewise, He made vessels of mercy to testify to God's grace. God, being able to do whatever He likes, has the right to demonstrate His wrath as though we did have a say-so in committing the sins. However, ultimately He would not be able to hold us accountable for our sins indefinitely because He was the one that forced us to commit them.

 

[chessman]

What exactly is a reformed theologian?

Theology is the study of God; His nature, attributes, character and abilities. Note what it is not. It is NOT the study of religion or the study of man.

Reformed Theology is the beliefs held by the protestant movement theologians (those that studied God through Scripture) that "reformed" certain theological perspectives held by the Roman Catholic Church around the 16th Century.


A Reformed theologian is therefore someone who has studied these differences (Protestant versus Roman Catholic) and holds to the key tenants of the reformation movement as they stand in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church at that time. Namely the Five "solas":

1. Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone
2. Sola Christus - Christ alone
3. Sola Gratia - Grace alone
4. Sola Fide - Faith alone
5. Soli Deo Gloria - the Glory of God alone

Probably to most clear and fundamental difference within Reformed Theology versus any other theology (study of God) is that it holds the doctrines of God higher than all of other doctrines. For example., take sovereignty. God is “more†sovereign than man, if you will. I say “if you will†because God is either sovereign over all things or He’s not, technically speaking so I’m not really sure how it ever got misunderstood so badly. But it sure has within various teachings.
A Reformed Theologian would NOT say that God’s sovereignty is limited by man’s freewill. Neither, however, would he say that man has no freewill at all. Freewill does not equal sovereignty. Though many times people that do not fully understand Reformed Theology (even some that call themselves reformed) will erroneously think a RT believes man does not have free will.
I believe this misunderstanding of RT may be the very reason that Beartheweak started the thread/question.

 

[mondar]

chessman, it is quite easy to tell you are not reformed, but want to speak for we who are reformed.

 

[chessman]

chessman, it is quite easy to tell you are not reformed, but want to speak for we who are reformed.

Exactly. I am human. Reformed is a Theology. You might give more thought about your assertions and evidence as to why you say what you do.

 

[chessman]

... if you agree with me that God creates circumstances that make it "irresistible" (Romans 9:19) to the point where we have no other choice but to sin then you should also be able to see how that would ultimately mean 100% of the reason we sin is because God made us (albeit maybe not directly, but indirectly through Satan- He is still the ultimate cause of it).

Where RT would disagree with you in the above statement is:
1. You imply the “it†that is irresistible is unforgiven sin. RT says God’s forgiven all the sin of His elect (Paul for example). Therefore, in a crude way of speaking, God could make Paul do anything He pleased to make him do (directly or indirectly) and it wouldn’t send Paul to Hell. But Paul never says that it's God that's making him sin. In fact, he goes on and on about how it's his human nature that makes him sin. So I don’t see any problem or un-fairness with regard to His elect. Do you?
2. You imply that man (elect or not-elect) has no part to play in his sin by “100% of the reason we sin is because God made usâ€. RT say’s man’s responsibility for sin is real and direct (the elect’s and the non-elect’s). In fact we are 100% depraved and with 100% tendency to sin.

So then the contradiction I see in reformed theology flows like this:

1) The bible appears to tell us that God ultimately made us sin because He obviously planned it.
2) The bible also appears to tell us there is no injustice in God.
3) Reformists agree with premise 1 AND premise 2.
4) I'm still not understanding why that isn't a contradiction. God made us sin but He eternally punishes us as though we are responsible for it.

It might be helpful to look at the exact Scripture you mean WRT 1) Also, what do mean by “plannedâ€. Are you implying that man didn’t have a choice in the matter or not?
WRT 4), God doesn’t eternally punish His elect. They are forever His and will be with Him. By “us†do you mean the un-elect? By definition, the un-elect are those that do not love God. Are you suggesting there are people that love God, and by His grace have faith in Him for forgiveness of their sins that do get eternally punished anyway? That’s not RT, nor a sovereign God. I'm unaware of any Scripture that states thosedestined to Hell don't fully deserve to be there.

Just trying to help and respond to your question as I understand RT. I could be wrong about anything I’ve said and would be glad to accept correction, but at least I’m trying to help.
God Bless

 

[enlightened]

Even though people believe GOD knew adam would sin, or even decreed it to be (read this in this thread), it cannot be proven by any scriptures, but is an intrepretation only.
Personally, if one believes GOD knew that Adam would sin, and by extension that all of us would sin, even before we werre created, then, because the majority of humanity is going to end up in the Lake of Fire, it must be true that GOD set Adam up for a fall, and HE gave Adam an empty promise of a perpetual life for obedience to the Commandment. Is this a just and merciful GOD, to create just to destroy? Certainly, GOD gave Adam the opportunity to sin; but, either way Adam went, GOD had a plan. The choice was Adam's. This i believe: and i cannot believe GOD knew or wanted Adam to sin. How could HE when HE cannot sin, nor even consider sinning?

 

[chessman]

Even though people believe GOD knew adam would sin, or even decreed it to be (read this in this thread), it cannot be proven by any scriptures, but is an intrepretation only.

Did God know Adam would sin ahead of time? RT would say yes. I’ll list a few Scriptures here and see if there’s any interest in continuing with these types of Scripture. I would hope that Scripture is what is used/referenced for any contrary arguments, and not simply anyone’s personal viewpoint. There may be some contradictory Scriptures to the ones I cite here that would indicate Adam’s sin came as a surprise to God, but I’m not aware of any.

Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
​

It doesn’t say “if you eat” from it. It says in the day that you eat indicating God did know Adam would commit this sin. God’s foreknowledge of all events is fundamental to Christianity. God has this attribute of foreknowledge. We humans do not. Little g gods do not either. See Isaiah 41:21-24:

“Present your case,” the Lord says. “Bring forward your strong arguments,” The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.
​

Yes, it’s a little difficult for us humans to grasp just exactly how any being could do this as we don’t even come close to that ability. It’s one of the attributes that makes God, God. But if you think about it, we come a lot closer to “knowing” the future than say a tree does or an ape. We were created with an “image of God” not the full Godly attribute of foreknowledge. However, we do beat everything (and I mean everything) else in the universe at “knowing” the future. Kind of amazing if you think about it. Why should humans be the only creature to contemplate future events? Anyway, here’s another Scripture that teaches us that God knew Adam would sin (and everything else that ever happened in Adam’s life).

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
​

So the Bible does directly tell us that God knew at least this portion of Adam’s future (that he would “toil the rest of his life”) from that day forward. So why not from Adam’s first day or even prior to that? There is no good reason why not, if we are talking about what God knows. Else, when did God gain this ability to know Adam’s future? Did he not know Adam’s future from all eternity past? God doesn’t “gain” knowledge.

Romans 11:33-36 “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor? Or who has first given to him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen”
​

RT would say that God knew Adam’s, Eve’s, mine and your future (all of it) even prior to our birth (or creation in Adam and Eve’s case). If God doesn’t know our future how can we have assurance of everlasting life? If God didn’t know Adam would sin, how could it have been His plan to redeem man through Christ from all eternity? Here’s some Scripture that support these points I’m making:

Job 21:22“Can anyone teach God knowledge”

Psalm 139:1-6 “O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue [foreknowledge], Behold, O Lord, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.”

Eph 1:9-11 “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
​

Why God would create Adam (or any other man) to die is not a mystery either. We know from the Bible (Romans 7, I’ve already mentioned):

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
​

God’s plan for us is a re-birth through Christ. We will be made new and without this sin nature we now possess. I already made this Biblical point by referencing Romans 7 where Paul tells us God’s purpose for creating us (all of us) sinful in the first place. But the point is here that if God doesn’t know the future event, then how can we have assurance of it?
In summary:

Psalm 147:5 “Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.”
​

 

[Butch5]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

Let me suggest that Sovereign "doesn't" mean one controls everything. God can be sovereign without controlling everything that happens. I'd also like to point out that the passage in Romans 9 needs to be understood in context.

 

[Butch5]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

The problem is trying to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism with the Scriptures, both contain errors that is why you are struggling.

 

[chessman]

Let me suggest that Sovereign "doesn't" mean one controls everything.....

Also Beartheweak, "make" does not equal "allow" or "planned". In your previous post you "flow" a logical argument with "1) The bible appears to tell us that God ultimately made us sin because He obviously planned it." I would submit that the Bible verses I'm familiar with indicate God "allows" us to sin, not so much "makes" us sin as if we are puppets on a string. Just because he knows of our sin ahead of time does not rule out our using freewill to commit those sins. It would seem this gets to the heart of your apparent contradiction.

I understand there is some nuanced relationship between these three verbs. But within these detailed nuances is where I find the Perfect answers to your very reasonable original question/conflict in the OP. But again, if you have any particular Scriptures that seem to contradict each other and cause confusion with respect to RT, I feel that this forum's a great place for all of us to learn more about these issues (God’s attributes that is).

Only if we are all respectful and honest toward each other’s questions or logical arguments, of course.

 

[Butch5]

Also Beartheweak, "make" does not equal "allow" or "planned". In your previous post you "flow" a logical argument with "1) The bible appears to tell us that God ultimately made us sin because He obviously planned it." I would submit that the Bible verses I'm familiar with indicate God "allows" us to sin, not so much "makes" us sin as if we are puppets on a string. Just because he knows of our sin ahead of time does not rule out our using freewill to commit those sins. It would seem this gets to the heart of your apparent contradiction.

I understand there is some nuanced relationship between these three verbs. But within these detailed nuances is where I find the Perfect answers to your very reasonable original question/conflict in the OP. But again, if you have any particular Scriptures that seem to contradict each other and cause confusion with respect to RT, I feel that this forum's a great place for all of us to learn more about these issues (God’s attributes that is).

Only if we are all respectful and honest toward each other’s questions or logical arguments, of course.

Hi Chessman,

I agree, when logical arguments prevail confusion seems to disappear.

 

[beartheweak]

Let me suggest that Sovereign "doesn't" mean one controls everything. God can be sovereign without controlling everything that happens. I'd also like to point out that the passage in Romans 9 needs to be understood in context.

Unfortunately, the way I stated Romans 9 is not out of context. Now, it can be debated as to whether Romans 9 is in reference to either 1) God simply having the right to make some for destruction and some for mercy or 2) God actually making some for destruction and some for mercy. However, I think the obvious conclusion when using context is that Paul is answering the direct question of (paraphrasing) "How does God find injustice in us since He is the one that predestinated us to fall into destruction in the first place?". Which, in effect, implies that God does indeed make some for destruction and some for mercy (premise 2 from this paragraph). So if God makes some for destruction then that also implies that God intended for all man to sin but would save a select few. Since God intended for man to sin then "who can resist His will?" (Romans 9:19, I think). Is it really Just for God to eternally punish the ones that He forced to sin? Notice I keep using words that imply God's complete responsibility (not only for our sinning, but everything) because I think it's undeniable given all the verses Calvinists use to back up their theology.

 

[beartheweak]

The problem is trying to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism with the Scriptures, both contain errors that is why you are struggling.

Yes, I am seeing that. What alternative theology do you propose? This is what I am trying to figure out.

 

[beartheweak]

I would submit that the Bible verses I'm familiar with indicate God "allows" us to sin, not so much "makes" us sin as if we are puppets on a string. Just because he knows of our sin ahead of time does not rule out our using freewill to commit those sins. It would seem this gets to the heart of your apparent contradiction.

I would agree with you, but the bible doesn't only tell us He knew about our sins ahead of time. We can also gather this based on what we know from the bible:

1) God, knowing the future and that all of mankind be hopelessly sinful, He still created man with free will ("free will" is used in the sense that you can choose one thing or something else). Therefore, He must have intended this, otherwise you are denying that He could have created sinless beings. So can we all agree that God intended man to sin in order for a greater purpose?
2) God, intending all men to be sinful (see premise 1, of this post) in order to show His glory comparatively, He decided that instead of saving all men from eternal destruction (which, by the way, is the position He by default placed all of us into), He would only save a few from eternal destruction.
3) Not only does God not give every single man the gospel so that each man might have an opportunity to accept or reject Him, He also doesn't even give those same hopelessly doomed individuals a choice to be born in the first place. It would at least be Just if He, at the end of the hopeless individual's life, gave the man an opportunity to have never been born. Yet, He doesn't do this.
4) Therefore, God intended that not only man would sin, but that the majority of them would end up in eternal torment.

Nothing about any of that makes sense. Nothing about condemning a man to eternal hell, that He intended to be a sinner from the beginning, is Just. Nothing about sending a man to eternal hell is Love. Nothing about condemning a man to eternal Hell is Merciful (especially if God was the one that intended it from the beginning). Nothing about condemning a man to eternal Hell is Gracious. In fact, the only thing that this does is show us how powerful God is.

Surely there must be a better answer? Using the above scenario, if we were to remove "eternal" from the plan of hell then we can see the following. Condemning a man to temporary Hell (for a finite period of time) is equivalent to the finite sin the man committed, therefore it is Just. Condemning a man to temporary hell in order to be purified and shown the truth is Love. Condemning a man to a temporary hell and given another chance is Merciful. Redeeming man from a temporary hell is Gracious. God having the ability to send man to hell and purify him is Power.

Why do the attributes of God only apply when we are alive? Why do the majority of His attributes mysteriously disappear when we die? I think this is contradictory. Me using a temporary hell is simply a way to show an example of what would be Just, Loving, Merciful, Gracious, and Powerful. Certainly God doesn't have a different understanding of Justice, Love, Mercy, and Grace as the very humans He created. That is what I am so confused about.