The Westminster Confession of Faith Blasphemy

[JLB]

The Westminster Confession of Faith Says That God was PLEASED With The Fall of The Human Race.

“Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory” (On the Fall of Man, https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf)

Not only does the WCF say that God was PLEASED to ALLOW Adam and Eve to sin, and therefore the entire human race. But, it goes on to say, that God so PLANNED to ORDER THEIR SIN TO HIS OWN GLORY.

This is the highest form of BLASPHEMY, as it clearly makes God the AUTHOR of our sins, and that He takes PLEASURE in our SINNING!!!

The Oxford English Dictionary defines PLEASED:

“Affected by feelings of satisfaction or pleasure; contented, gratified, in good humour”

And ORDER:

“Of the Deity, etc.: To regulate or determine (occurrences, events, etc.); to ordain”

This is 100% AGAINST the Teachings of the Holy Bible, and must be REJECTED, as from hell!

Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory” (On the Fall of Man, https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf)

I take it this was copied from one of the sections?


God certainly didn’t take pleasure to allow them to sin, and certainly did not “order their sin for His glory”.

That sounds like what Calvinist’s believe.





How about theses Essentials of faith?

Do you agree with them?


Essentials of Our Faith
All Scripture is self-attesting and being Truth, requires our unreserved submission in all areas of life. The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God’s redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.
On this sure foundation we affirm these additional Essentials of our faith.
1. We believe in one God, the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To Him be all honor, glory and praise for ever!
2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is true God became true man united in one Person forever. He died on the cross a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He now is our High Priest and Mediator.
3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws us to the Savior. Indwelling our hearts, He gives new life to us, empowers and imparts gifts to us for service. He instructs and guides us into all truth, and seals us for the day of redemption.
4. Being estranged from God and condemned by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly dependent upon the work of God’s free grace. God credits His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justifies them in His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become children of God and heirs of eternal life.
5. The true Church is composed of all persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit are united together in the body of Christ. The Church finds her visible, yet imperfect, expression in local congregations where the Word of God is preached in its purity and the sacraments are administered in their integrity, where scriptural discipline is practiced, and where loving fellowship is maintained. For her perfecting, she awaits the return of her Lord.
6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth–personally, visibly, and bodily–to judge the living and the dead, and to consummate history and the eternal plan of God. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)
7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world and to make disciples of all nations. Obedience to the Great Commission requires total commitment to “Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.” He calls us to a life of self-denying love and service. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10)






JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

Re:
The Westminster Confession of Faith Says That God was PLEASED With The Fall of The Human Race.
“Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory”.

I've heard condemnation of the WCF statement regarding the vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. Not surprisingly, there has been no attempt to offer an alternate explanation. (Not that this surprises me). THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING !

 

[SolaScriptura]

Re:
The Westminster Confession of Faith Says That God was PLEASED With The Fall of The Human Race.
“Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory”.

I've heard condemnation of the WCF statement regarding the vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. Not surprisingly, there has been no attempt to offer an alternate explanation. (Not that this surprises me). THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING !

why not just deal wiith the OP, and admit that the language used in the WCF is blasphemy, as it very clearly says to those who understand the English language, that God is the author of sins! YOUR SILENCE IS INDEED DEAFENING!!!

 

[jaybo]

why not just deal wiith the OP, and admit that the language used in the WCF is blasphemy, as it very clearly says to those who understand the English language, that God is the author of sins! YOUR SILENCE IS INDEED DEAFENING!!!

Why the hostility??

 

[Fastfredy0]

why not just deal wiith the OP, and admit that the language used in the WCF is blasphemy, as it very clearly says to those who understand the English language, that God is the author of sins!

You are avoiding my question as I expected. Give us a better theodicy than the WCF. Apparently, you can't or won't.

YOUR SILENCE IS INDEED DEAFENING!!!

I addressed the question at hand in post #30 using several scriptures. You, on the other hand, being the author of the thread, have not posted an alternative theodicy. (I expect you won't ... I suppose you don't have a better explanation)

 

[jasonc]

Re:
The Westminster Confession of Faith Says That God was PLEASED With The Fall of The Human Race.
“Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory”.

I've heard condemnation of the WCF statement regarding the vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. Not surprisingly, there has been no attempt to offer an alternate explanation. (Not that this surprises me). THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING !

My church uses it often .we don't force a believer to be reformed .the requirements for membership is confession of faith.the five solas.gasp acknowledge you without Jesus are damned and not worthy .not capable of any pleasing thing to God

Why how blasphemous .we require baptism under the trinity .whether as a baby .sprinkled or immerse .

 

[jasonc]

To the arminist . why did God

Why didn't God slay Adam and eve .and Satan ?
And start over ?
Why permit evil for centuries .millienia.
Does God need man .will God be lacking joy.peace etc if man we're to cease ?

 

[SolaScriptura]

My church uses it often .we don't force a believer to be reformed .the requirements for membership is confession of faith.the five solas.gasp acknowledge you without Jesus are damned and not worthy .not capable of any pleasing thing to God

Why how blasphemous .we require baptism under the trinity .whether as a baby .sprinkled or immerse .

Baby sprinkling is totally unbiblical

 

[SolaScriptura]

You are avoiding my question as I expected. Give us a better theodicy than the WCF. Apparently, you can't or won't.


I addressed the question at hand in post #30 using several scriptures. You, on the other hand, being the author of the thread, have not posted an alternative theodicy. (I expect you won't ... I suppose you don't have a better explanation)

None of the verse that you have given deal with the OP. You are trying to justify your theology from the Bible, but cannot as it is not taught anywhere in the Word

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why didn't God slay Adam and eve .and Satan ?
And start over ?
Why permit evil for centuries .millienia.

Interesting questions. Since God is all knowing, all wise and all powerful we must conclude that His plan is infinitely perfect. One must also consider that man loves man and loves to so things from man's point of view rather than God's point of view which leads us to: "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts not your thoughts". Which lead us to wonder why.

When you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Vincent Cheung – Ultimate Questions
God is the ‘first cause’; He is not an effect so there is no WHY.

Does God need man .will God be lacking joy.peace etc if man we're to cease ?

God gains NOTHING from man. If God lacked anything in eternity then He is not infinitely perfect.
Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]” AMP
It is better to give than receive.

 

[jasonc]

Baby sprinkling is totally unbiblical

I don't agree with it but Lutherans the Catholics do ot

 

[OzSpen]

Agreed. We argue that God is the cause of you willingly believing the gospel message via regeneration. Regeneration precedes faith logically.

FF,

Really?

Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, knew the folly of the kind of thinking that states that regeneration is logically prior to faith. He preached that it is absurd to say that a sinner is regenerate logically before he/she believes. Spurgeon stated:

“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. ” [Sermon, The Warrant of Faith].

Norman Geisler, who called himself, a moderate Calvinist (1999:129), stated:

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it (1999:228).

To support his position, Geisler examines Romans 5:1;Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; John 3:6-7; and Titus 3:5-7 (1999:228-230), to demonstrate that faith is prior to regeneration.

Oz

References​

Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

 

[Fastfredy0]

None of the verse that you have given deal with the OP. You are trying to justify your theology from the Bible, but cannot as it is not taught anywhere in the Word

Well, our opinions vary then.

Still waiting for your theodicy that would correct the WCF statement.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, knew the folly of the kind of thinking that states that regeneration is logically prior to faith. He preached that it is absurd to say that a sinner is regenerate logically before he/she believes. Spurgeon stated

Well, I appreciate you backing up your statement with a quote. Since I knew Spurgeon to be a Calvinist the proposed supporting quote was of great interest.
I read the quote carefully 3 times. It does not address the point we are discussing that "Regeneration logically (not temporally) precedes conversion (Faith + Repentance).
I see nothing about the logical order in regeneration to faith/repentance. There are statements that imply "regeneration and faith/repentance" occur temporally at the same time ... to which I agree.

So, let's us a known Calvinist (R.C. Sproul) that deals with the statement "Regeneration logically preceded faith".
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."
These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:
"Faith - rebirth -justification."
I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.
yahda, yahda ...
This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.

Norman Geisler, who called himself, a moderate Calvinist (1999:129),, stated:

Well, I don't accept Geisler as being a Calvinist as I define it.
James White wrote The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. James is definitely a Calvinist. I believe Norman is a Free Will personality.

Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, knew the folly of the kind of thinking

I am pretty sure Spurgeon agreed with me and Sproul and White and disputed the 'folly' (your adhominem) of "faith preceding regeneration logically".

Hmmm, I found your Spurgeon quote in https://andrewh00.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/spurgeon-on-regeneration-before-faith/
I think the author is implying Spurgeon thought regeneration logically precedes faith .. again, the quote is not plain to be regarding that subject.

The following URL addresses C. H. Spurgeon on the Priority of Regeneration to Faith

https://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/spurgeon-regeneration.pdf

... so, I think you got Spurgeon's doctrine on this matter confused

 

[GodsGrace]

You may depict what I am saying, as saying God is not love. But I am not saying that. If I talk about how God destroyed all the millions of people on the earth in Noah's day, can that be interpreted as the love of God?

Or can the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah be interpreted as the love of God?

If I talk about how God killed all the first born of Egypt during the exodus of Israel, can that be interpreted as the love of God?

What about the book of (Revelation)? The majority population of the earth will be destroyed by God. Is that to be interpreted as His love?

Better yet, look at the one act that describes completely the love of God. The crucifixion of Christ. (John 3:16) Why would God not come up with a better solution then the cruel death of God the Son to reveal His love? I mean, He is God.

Answer: God is a God of love. And anything He does reflects His love. We don't get to choose the things God can or cannot do to reflect His love. If God saves 3000, He is right and good and His love is displayed. If God destroyes 3000, He is right and good and His love is displayed.

When God will send the vast majority of mankind into the Lake of Fire forever, He is right and good and His love is displayed, because He is a God of love.

Are you saying that the God as I have described is not worthy of your worship and acceptance?

Quantrill

I'd have to say YES, the God as you have described Him is not worthy of my worship and acceptance.
And since God instilled in man the need for God,,,just as Augustine (Calvin's hero) stated, we search for a God that can fill our spirit.
The Calvinist God does not match the God I find in the bible.

I'll say that at times hearing that God is Love when a person credits Him with no other attributes, it makes me wonder if they really know God at all.
This is because God is love....but He also has other attributes of character that can't be overlooked.

To answer all of the above situations (except the crucifixion of Jesus which is different) we have to remember that God is not only love and merciful...
but He is also just. The attributes and morals that man seeks are found in God and have been passed down to us. So man seeks justice because God is a God of justice.

Under your paradigm, I cannot see how God can be just.
He destroyed whole cities and populations.
He will send the vast majority of persons to hell, just as Jesus stated - the road to heaven is narrow.

Under my paradigm God can do all of the above and still be a God of love, mercy and justice.
Why? Because He has let us know what He expects from us and what we are to do to remain as His children.
All of the above were not His children.

He cannot be a just God unless He gives to every man what he deserves, which is what justice is.
How can any man deserve hell if he did nothing to merit it? If it was God that sent him there with no action on the man's part?

If God causes me to sin and then punishes me for it, how is that justice?
If I sin on my own and because I want to and decide to sin...and I end up in hell because I didn't obey God...then we can say that God is a just God.


I'd like to say that I also don't understand how SOVEREIGNTY has anything to do with free will since the reformed believe we cannot have free will because God is sovereign.

Definition of sovereign​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom

sovereign
adjective
sov·er·eign | \ ˈsä-v(ə-)rən , -vərn also ˈsə- \
variants: or less commonly sovran
Definition of sovereign (Entry 2 of 2)
1a: superlative in quality
b: of the most exalted kind : SUPREMEsovereign virtue
c: having generalized curative powersa sovereign remedy
d: of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATEDsovereign contempt
e: having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2a: possessed of supreme powera sovereign ruler
b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE
c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENTsovereign states
3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a supreme ruler : ROYALa sovereign right

source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign


Why can't God have all of the above AND give us free will?

 

[OzSpen]

Well, I appreciate you backing up your statement with a quote. Since I knew Spurgeon to be a Calvinist the proposed supporting quote was of great interest.
I read the quote carefully 3 times. It does not address the point we are discussing that "Regeneration logically (not temporally) precedes conversion (Faith + Repentance).
I see nothing about the logical order in regeneration to faith/repentance. There are statements that imply "regeneration and faith/repentance" occur temporally at the same time ... to which I agree.

So, let's us a known Calvinist (R.C. Sproul) that deals with the statement "Regeneration logically preceded faith".
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."
These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:
"Faith - rebirth -justification."
I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.
yahda, yahda ...
This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.


Well, I don't accept Geisler as being a Calvinist as I define it.
James White wrote The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. James is definitely a Calvinist. I believe Norman is a Free Will personality.



I am pretty sure Spurgeon agreed with me and Sproul and White and disputed the 'folly' (your adhominem) of "faith preceding regeneration logically".

Hmmm, I found your Spurgeon quote in https://andrewh00.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/spurgeon-on-regeneration-before-faith/
I think the author is implying Spurgeon thought regeneration logically precedes faith .. again, the quote is not plain to be regarding that subject.

The following URL addresses C. H. Spurgeon on the Priority of Regeneration to Faith

https://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/spurgeon-regeneration.pdf

... so, I think you got Spurgeon's doctrine on this matter confused

FF,

I obtained the Spurgeon quote straight from one of his sermons, The Warrant of Faith. I didn't go searching for secondary sources.

I got Spurgeon's doctrine on regeneration straight from Spurgeon. Guess who is "confused"?

Oz

 

[jaybo]

Baby sprinkling is totally unbiblical

That is correct. Baptism must be a personal decision, something babies are incapable of.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Well, I appreciate you backing up your statement with a quote. Since I knew Spurgeon to be a Calvinist the proposed supporting quote was of great interest.
I read the quote carefully 3 times. It does not address the point we are discussing that "Regeneration logically (not temporally) precedes conversion (Faith + Repentance).
I see nothing about the logical order in regeneration to faith/repentance. There are statements that imply "regeneration and faith/repentance" occur temporally at the same time ... to which I agree.

So, let's us a known Calvinist (R.C. Sproul) that deals with the statement "Regeneration logically preceded faith".
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."
These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:
"Faith - rebirth -justification."
I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.
yahda, yahda ...
This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.


Well, I don't accept Geisler as being a Calvinist as I define it.
James White wrote The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. James is definitely a Calvinist. I believe Norman is a Free Will personality.



I am pretty sure Spurgeon agreed with me and Sproul and White and disputed the 'folly' (your adhominem) of "faith preceding regeneration logically".

Hmmm, I found your Spurgeon quote in https://andrewh00.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/spurgeon-on-regeneration-before-faith/
I think the author is implying Spurgeon thought regeneration logically precedes faith .. again, the quote is not plain to be regarding that subject.

The following URL addresses C. H. Spurgeon on the Priority of Regeneration to Faith

https://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/spurgeon-regeneration.pdf

... so, I think you got Spurgeon's doctrine on this matter confused

Where in the Bible does it say that a sinner is regenerated before they can be saved? Have you ever heard of the phrase putting the cart before the horse?

 

[GodsGrace]

The verses in post #(6) are (Is. 14:24) (Ps. 135:6) (Gen. 45:4-5) (Gen. 50:20) (Acts 2:23)

Add to that (Acts 15:18). "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The fall of Adam and Eve, of the human race had to be in the plan of God. To suggest otherwise is to have God having to react to something that was never part of His plan.

Finally to post no. 44

Acts 15:18 simply states that God knew the plan all along...agreed.
I looked up only Isaiah 14:24 which states that God planned the defeat of the Assyrians when they entered into Israel.

Calvinists use the O.T. a lot because it seems to agree more with that belief system...that God planned everything from the beginning.

It would certainly seem so...except that the O.T. is the beginning of a revelation of God....as the books progress, we find that God is revealed
more and more until we get to the N.T.

In the O.T. everything that happened was attributed to God.

When a prophet spoke, he was being God's oracle....
A very brave person who heard the voice of God and wrote down what he heard.

One either has to come to some terms with the O.T. or accept that God is deterministic and this truly must be untrue since we would just be a game being played out.

Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.
I think we should put our focus on what Jesus taught.

I'd say that God allows evil...He allowed Israel to be taken by the Assyrians and the Babylonians for whatever His purpose was,,,maybe to teach them not to abandon their God...Babylon is the picture of all those that do not love God but oppose Him. (Rev 14:8)

If God allows evil, it does not give a reply to the question of theodicy. But it does keep His character in tact.
If God creates evil (as in your paradigm) it gives a reply to the problem of theodicy, but it changes the character and nature of God.

If God didn't plan on the fall of Adam and Eve, why did He put the Tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? Why did He let satan have access to the garden? Or did satan sneak in without God knowing about it?

We can only know what we know. We shouldn't add to the stories in the bible.
The tree might have been put there as a test for the humans.
God didn't plan for Adam and Eve to sin....He allowed them to sin..they had free will (even Calvin believes this, I think I posted the source).

God knew satan was in the garden...there's nothing God does not know.

If God planned for Adam and Eve to sin...why did He curse them?
Again,,,we face God's justice.
If they had free will He was just for expelling them from the Garden.
If God planned for them to sin and He expelled them, then how would He be a God of justice?
How did He treat them as they deserved?

When God asked Adam, "Where art thou?", did He really not know where Adam was? Is He stumbling around in the garden looking under the trees and foilage unable to find him?

Mankind in the Garden was not the goal of God for man. The fall of man was part of the plan of God to obtain that goal. The goal of God was the very place He has brought fallen and redeemed man to. True sons and daughters of God born of Him. (John 12:24) "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

Please explain better what the plan of God was for man.
I don't understand how the fall could cause true sons and daughters.

Why wouldn't free will fit better?

And, all that God does is for His glory. That is as it should be. It can be no other way. Thus the fall of Adam and Eve as part of the plan of God, was indeed for His glory. The fall of Adam and Eve, as part of that plan, which included their sin, was indeed for the glory of God.

In my opinion, anything less than this, and God is not God. He would be just a god having to react to things which he never intended. He would be just another spirit being in a contest with satan and hoping he can salvage part of his plan.

Quantrill

How is evil to God's glory?

God does not react to events...this is not what non-calvinists believe.
God knows all and allows all, and sometimes He even PLANS certain events.

But not everything and not each individual person's salvation with no in-put from the person.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Where in the Bible does it say that a sinner is regenerated before they can be saved? Have you ever heard of the phrase putting the cart before the horse?

I agree with Quantrill. You never/rarely answer questions so I see not need to enlighten you.

Still waiting for your theodicy to vindicate of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil so we can compare it to the WCF viewpoint.