As offensive as it appears at first, it seems to be a very blunt way of taking this doctrine to its logical conclusion, no? After all, if God saw fit to allow 32-33 people to be shot to death at Virginia Tech, should we not thank Him for it, even praise Him for it? It seems to rationally follow, even if instinctually repugnant.

Maybe I’m missing something …
- James

Great question. The answer of course is absolutely not. This is where the discussion gets a little too deep for a simple guy like me. But, there is a difference in God’s revealed will and His eternal decree. That is, God has commanded man not to sin, but God allows and ultimately ordains man to act out the sin within his heart. So, from our standpoint, we cannot see the eternal decrees of God, -the plan of history written down and decreed by the Lord. We can only know His decreed will as revealed in scripture, and it is His decreed will in scripture that we are to seek after.

Also, consider that God is not the author of evil. He does not create it in man’s heart, He simply controlls how it is acted out. Thus, the shootings are at the ultimate root an unholy sin and abomination to the Lord, even though He decreed it in ‘time and space’.

If we reject this…on what basis can we say that God knows the future, can control the future, or that He can stop evil when He chooses? If God could have stopped the shootings but didn’t, then doesn’t that in itself warrant it being labeled a decree?

In this type of discussion we need to watch how we use certain terms. First “allows”, in my opinion tends to cofuse the issue. Sin is not “created” it is defined. And though it hasn’t been used here, God is not “responsible” to anyone (ie. He doesn’t have to respond or give an answer to anything he does). That is the nature of us as creatures.

We must also be careful here when we discuss what God prescribes in His Word and what He decrees will happen. Many have fallen prey to taking very Arminian steps in this, such as claiming that God truly desires the salvation of every single man and yet decreeing only the elects salvation.

The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin. For it to be a problem, it must make some point of Christianity false, or contradict some passage of Scripture. But if God is the author of sin, how does it make Christianity false? One must construct an argument showing this by citing established premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity would be false if God is the author of sin. What is this argument? And what passage of Scripture does it contradict? You can cite any passage you want, but you have to show that it necessarily applies to the question and makes it impossible for God to be the author of sin. Where is this passage of Scripture?

Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13.4 Using this verse to deny that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of Scripture, and because this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith.

I’ll leave it there. Find out how Cheung answers the question.

Are you saying that God has told us want His will us via Scripture, but what He REALLY desires us to do is something completely different? This sounds as if you’re attributing a certain dishonesty to Him, yes?

Let’s call this “other” will His “secret” will. Is there any way of knowing what this “secret” will is, or is it just everything that happens to occur? If I punch someone in the nose, is what He “really” wanted, even though I think there’s some passage in Scripture admonishing us to avoid striking each other with “wicked fists”? Further, is there any way of resisting this secret will?

For example, if I believe I am among the elect and desire to live as such for the remainder of my life, is it not conceivable that it is His secret will for me to deny the faith and become an apostate, no matter how much I think I desire to live in Heaven?

Under such a thorny system, I’m not sure how one can have any particular confidence in … well .. anything.

- James

Adam’s disobedience
Pharaoh’s refusal to hearken to the Lord
Judas’s betrayal of Christ
Jews rejection of Christ
Pontious Pilate allowance for the crucifixion of Christ

I like to look at this subject this way:
God has two “wills:” God’s “immediate” will, and God’s “ultimate” will. His “immediate” will is often never accomplished, but his ultimate will is always accomplished. For example, God’s immediate will was that Adam would not eat of the fruit. God’s ultimate will was that he would eat of it. Christ was not immediately pleased with Judas’s betrayal, yet He was ultimately pleased with it.

That being said, I do stand by my statement that God uses the sin of our hearts for His own purposes. However, even with the original sin of Adam, in whom there was no sin to begin with, the question has to be asked, ‘where did his sin come from?’. Of course, God decreed the fall, so it logically follows that God somehow created or decreed sin to enter Adam’s heart.

Nevertheless, I am reminded of John Murray, and I can’t find the specific quote (Redemption accomplished and applied), but he says that the ordination of sin, the cross, and evil in this world, were the only means for God to be perfectly glorified in all of His perfect attributes. Good point considering that God’s justice and wrath (holy attributes) would never be displayed to His glory had not sin entered the world. Thus, God’s end in creating the world: His own glory.

SDG

Well, yes, but doesn’t this in a way imply that God (eternal and unchanging) was somehow lacking something, as if He would have been less glorified had He not created it at all? It almost sounds as if He “needs” to make use of His wrath and justice. My understanding is that we as creatures are entirely superfluous. He was in want of nothing and would have been just as fine without us.

Between Cheung suggesting that God “might be the author of sin” and some of the other comments here, this whole topic seems to lend itself to producing some heretical ideas! I think I’ll just leave it up to yet another incomprehensible aspect of theology better left to those more skilled than I at contemplating!

James 1:13-14
“13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”

Sorry it has taken a while to answer your question. Also, I wll comment on your last comment.

First, “Are you saying that God has told us want His will us via Scripture, but what He REALLY desires us to do is something completely different? This sounds as if you’re attributing a certain dishonesty to Him, yes?”

No. That is not what I am saying at all. And to try and give short answers assumes that you would understand certain other point such as the total depravity of many and how a man can truly submit himself unto God and His law (that being by the divine intervention of God’s Spirit). God has told men throughout history what to do and yet many still don’t obey. Have you considered that God commands things of sinners and specifically leaves them to their own sin and folly in order that He might demonstrate His wrath? Or, that He might accomplish something else, such as hardening others or in fact working their disobedience to the good of His elect (see Rom. 9)?

You asked, “Let’s call this “other” will His “secret” will. Is there any way of knowing what this “secret” will is, or is it just everything that happens to occur? If I punch someone in the nose, is what He “really” wanted, even though I think there’s some passage in Scripture admonishing us to avoid striking each other with “wicked fists”? Further, is there any way of resisting this secret will?

First, I’ll let God answer that.

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

Notice that this comes on the heels of a description of God’s providential dealings with Israel. However, there are many things that are not mentioned, including the PURPOSES for these things.
We also note that God through the prophet Isaiah spoke:

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

Notice that God is bringing these things about. Man is actually doing the things, but it is God purposing it and executing it. Notice that this is not only limited to birds of prey, but to men. So we can’t say that God is sovereign over all creation, except the will of man. Therefore, I must ask you in light of this, is God fulfillig His desires and purposes or is He somehow unfulfilled in His desires, since clearly He does as He pleases (cf. Dan. 4:35; Eph1:11).

Points have also been made that I am not seeig interaction with in the post itself that Nathan brought up from Genesis, Isaiah, and Acts. I would like to hear how you interact with those. That might help us see where your thinking is. Then maybe we can reason together.

You said, For example, if I believe I am among the elect and desire to live as such for the remainder of my life, is it not conceivable that it is His secret will for me to deny the faith and become an apostate, no matter how much I think I desire to live in Heaven?”

I don’t know why this is hard to understand. The Reformed believer is not convinced of his salvation because of election, but because he has faith. God’s election grants us saving faith, but I don’t for one minute have faith in my election. I have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who the Father said He was well pleased with. If your question though somehow speaks to the issue of God deluding people to believ a lie, then I concur. Paul says as much in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Are there those today in many churches (yes, SBC included) who are completely unregenerate, but believe they are really born again? Absolutely. If God’s desire is to truly save them, then He must open their eyes, for they need sight, as well as, life (cf. Rev. 3:17-18).

As for being thorny: it’s only that way because as of yet, you don’t fully comprehend the issues. That is not in a condescending tone, I assure you. Many of us have been where you are and have, by God’s grace, come to understand these things. I pray God will grant you understanding here as well.

You said, “Well, yes, but doesn’t this in a way imply that God (eternal and unchanging) was somehow lacking something, as if He would have been less glorified had He not created it at all? It almost sounds as if He “needs” to make use of His wrath and justice. My understanding is that we as creatures are entirely superfluous. He was in want of nothing and would have been just as fine without us.”

Ok, God is not lacking anything. He poses the attributes that He DESIRES to show forth. There is no need here at all. God is fully sufficient in Himself. However, in order to show forth mercy and grace, He must have something to demonstrate such mercy and grace upon. He doesn’t get mercy and grace from creating. He already has those attributes.

As to your last comment. Many would use the term author in a different manner than we are accustomed to hearing it ued today. For instance, I believe those who wrote the confession such as our church holds to (1689 LBCF) would understand that as God not being the primary cause of sin. I would assert that He is the one who defines what sin is (again, sin is not something created) and He has ordained it and purposed it, so I don’t have a problem if someone wants to use the term author in that respect. Can God do that and still say what is said in the passage you quoted in James? I believe He can.

Verse 23 says, “So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.”

These false prophets are responsible for the lies they told. But God is the cause of calling forth these spirits and sending them to do what He wants them to do. Those looking to get God “off the hook” for His actions among men will not be able to do so in this passage.

Also, 2 Thess. 2:11 and Psalm 73:16-19 speak to this as well. In Psalm 73, Asaph is allowed to see the purposes of God in allowing the wicked to prosper. “Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin.” It is God who raises up, and God who casts down. One can only truly understand mercy once we understand this. God is the ultimate cause of everything, even sin; yet men remain responsible for it. And all this for His glory.

What I COULD perhaps see is that God creates the opportunity for people to do what is already in their hearts, so what they are becomes manifest. If that is the case, one can still only tremble if they have any self-awareness and knowledge at all. If you are not an adulterer or a murderer, is it because you have a chaste and charitable heart, or is it simply because certain opportunities and temptations have not been made available? After all, if one lusts in his heart, he has already committed adultery. To place faith in one’s own character that they would successfully resist all manner of temptations and promptings of their sinful nature seems foolhardy.

- James

That doesn’t seem to answer Darrin’s assertions from Scripture. Maybe you you explain how what you believe would be a response to say….. Lucifer’s rebellion or the Fall of Adam. That might be helpful.

As I read your post, I wondered, would you claim that God is the “ultimate cause” of sin in the believers life or only in the life of the unreedemed? Maybe I am taking this in the wrong direction, but I am just trying to learn. Great discussion so far.

Let me say that I don’t know how this fully works itself out and there are some difficult texts to deal with. I think Cheung’s book referenced earlier goes a long way to coming up with the best solution I’ve seen on the issue. There are some difficult texts to deal with and I’ve listed some of them in my previous comment. How do we deal with 1 Kings 22:19-23, Psalm 73:16-19, Romans 9:21-23, 2 Thess. 2:11, among several others, that show God actively involved in those things most would say He could not do? I don’t know all the answers, but I know we just can’t cut these texts out of our Bibles and pretend they don’t exist.

Not sure if this helps at all. I hold the position, but not so dogmatically that someone couldn’t change my mind. I would just need to see these texts reconciled in such a way as to see God freed from His role as the “ultimate cause” of everything, even sin; and I’ve seen no such argument to date. My favourite book on God and Evil is Gordon Clark’s aptly titled, God and Evil. I posted on it here. It really is excellent and a must read when considering this issue.

I second that recommendation of Clark’s work

It is absurd to say “God causes evil and God does not cause evil” just as it is absurd to say that “By arriving 10 minutes early, he was late for work”.

If God is the “cause” behind Satan rebelling and Adam’s fall, then we are saying:
“God ALWAYS wills that you do His will, except when He wills that you do NOT do it”

Surely, this is madness.

I also sense some intellectual tap-dancing here. If this theory is true (that God “caused” Satan’s rebellion), then the ONLY rational and logical corollary is that He may cause ours, if not today or tomorrow, then a hundred years from now. There is no “eternal security”. After all, Satan was in Heaven prior to his rebellion for how many millennia? If God’s hidden will is unknowable (and irresistible), then I can’t imagine how one can even suggest that they KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are among the elect. Does God only “send delusions” of having been saved to other people?

- James

What is madness is turning a blind eye to those texts in scripture that do not fit into our theology. As a Calvinist, I fully admit there are some problematic texts, but I don’t give up wrestling with them. God’s revelation is perfectly coherent and contains no paradoxes or contradictions, despite what our minds might see. He expects us to study His word to come to a knowledge of the truth He has revealed; and that includes the tough passages.

You wrote: If this theory is true (that God “caused” Satan’s rebellion), then the ONLY rational and logical corollary is that He may cause ours, if not today or tomorrow, then a hundred years from now. There is no “eternal security”.

This does not follow at all. Your argument assumes that God promised that He would keep Satan forever. The elect have that promise from God in scripture (John 6:37), that if we are truly His, He will never let us go. Our assurance is not an epistemological certainty. Our assurance is subjective and based on our obedience to God. Are there “Demas’” among us? Certainly. Are there “stony ground hearers” among us? Those who receive the word with joy for a time then fall away? Absolutely. Our assurance is subjective in that it is tied to our obedience. God will not cause the elect to fall away for it would go against what He has promised. However, God will harden the reprobate for the purpose of displaying the power of His wrath in him; that vessel created for that purpose (Rom. 9:22). Only if we begin to understand that, can we understand the depth to which we are so undeserving of His mercy.

Likewise, you’ve been shown texts that state quite clearly that God does not tempt nor will evil:
James 1:13-14
“13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”

How can you possibly draw from this passage that God wills man to evil? Are you saying Scripture is deceitful? What do you make of this passage?

Darrin, with all due respect, you’re not thinking here. Why would God bother creating a Satan to do evil “by proxy”, when He could just do it Himself? Is He not omnipotent? Also, if God controls Satan’s will and actions, God is essentially at war with Himself!!!! This is preposterous — you’re basically attributing to Him something akin to multiple-personality disorder.

Please scroll up and read comment 4, my first comment in this thread. I referenced a work by Vincent Cheung which you obviously didn’t consider. If you want to understand the argument you really should read the work. It’s somewhat ironic that I pasted two small paragraphs, the latter which said:

“Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13. Using this verse to deny that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of Scripture, and because this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith.”

You have done exactly that. If you’re interested in understanding this, then I suggest you go read Cheung. And in case you’re wondering, there are many others who have written on this and come to the same conclusion. Cheung is the only one I know of readily available on the net. Clark’s God and Evil, which I also referenced, takes the same approach.

You see, Cheung has reconciled passages like James 1:13 with the difficult ones in 1 Kings and Psalm 73 that clearly show God as the ultimate cause of sin; He must necessarily be so if He truly is sovereign over all things. Unless you also reconcile these passages, you are the one left with the contradictions and no solution.

And to answer your last question, read Romans 9, which I also have referenced previously. Why create Satan and the wicked?

21-22 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

He created them in order to display His wrath. Proverbs also tells us that, “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov 16:4). There is a purpose for their creation, and for the end they will endure; ultimately it will all be for God’s glory.

I’m not sure there’s much else I can say on this topic. But if you honestly want to understand what I’m saying, and what other supralapsarians believe, read the Cheung work. I really don’t want to muddy up Nathan’s blog (any further) by reproducing chunks of Cheung’s work when one click is all that it will take.

I think you mix up terms here. You quote James which says that God does not tempt with evil and yet you draw a conclusion that God does not will evil. Then I might ask you, “Whose idea was it that evil exist?? “What purpose did they have in bringing it about?”

Indeed God cannot tempt with evil because evil is not in Him. It is not part of His nature. But to say that God has not decreed evil and purposed it from before the creation of the world is to not see what is so clear about election and the Savior and what the purpose of God was in both of them as well.

I realize that you may not be reformed and this is probably the reason you cannot get to this just yet. However, maybe you might want to back up and ask yourself a few things. (1) When did God know that man would sin? (2) When He knew man would sin, could it have been otherwise? (3) If it could have been otherwise, then what would be the purpose in ordaining the Son of God, before the foundation of the world (before anyone had actually done good or evil) to be the Savior from sin? (4) If you can understand what I’m getting at up to this point, then what is the purpose of God in election according to Romans 9?

All of these things ultimately point to a certain premise: God is working all things after the counsel of His will, not man’s. Sin exists for God’s glory, whether people like it or not. If sin didn’t exist, then Jesus Christ could not be a Savior from sin, grace could never truly be bestowed and mercy could never be given, because somehow man would be able to keep himself upright and perfect before God, and thus have something to boast of before God.

In 1993, a twelve-year-old girl had two friends over her home for a slumber party. At some point, an intruder entered and tied up two of those girls. The third he took with him. Before wrapping a rope around this young girl’s neck and strangling her to death, he brutally raped her. Imagine for a moment the sheer hell she must have suffered in those last agonizing moments and hours, not just the indignity of being sexually violated but not knowing whether she’d ever return home. Imagine the hell her parents suffered not knowing for hours and days what happened to her, and then having to replay in their minds what she must have endured. They eventually found Richard Allen Davis, but he drove the knife in, so to speak, when he sadistically stated in the courtroom that Polly’s last words were “not to do her like her daddy did”.

Now, Tim and Darron, would you like to suggest to this girl and her parents (who may or may NOT be among the “elect”) that a “good” God played a direct role in this atrocity and that their suffering was all so very necessary so that YOU could enter Heaven and thank Him?

Is this what you’re saying? Personally, I find it difficult to understand how God could simply allow it to happen, but to CAUSE it? I don’t understand your willingness to embrace this line of thought.

We have had this discussion before, and I have told you before that you seem to have a problem with the God of the Bible. I’m not sure if we need to hash all of this out once again.

However, the story you told is quite sad, no doubt. But consider a story far, far worse than this one: the God who made the world, who gives life, breath, and all things to man, comes down from heaven and takes the form of the creature He created. This Man lived a perfect life. He never hurt a soul; He never even thought about it. He perfectly obeyed the Law of God towards His fellow man and towards His Father in Heaven. Then, the men whom He created, the men whom He had blessed with life, with good things here on earth, with families no doubt, these men brutally tortured and murdered Him, spurning His incarnation to earth to pay for the sins of those who loved their Creator. A spotless, perfect Being, the creator of everything, tortured and murdered? As bad as your story is, that happened to a sinner who had broken God’s law. Christ was completely without sin and did not deserve anything but perfect eternal harmony with God for His life.

And yet, the worst act in world history –by infinite proportions, was ‘predestined to occur’, per Acts 4:27-28. God purposely decreed the specific actions of those who killed Jesus Christ.

Do you think Jesus had a problem with that? What if He had the attitude about His treatment that you do about things that happen to sinners?

We are not ‘embracing’ this line of thought because of something we enjoy about it; we embrace it because that is the God of scripture, and we have absolutely no right as creatures to question God in anything that He does. If God speaks truth in His word, don’t you think we should listen?

You took the words out of my mouth and out of the Scriptures.

James,

Ido understand where you are coming from. The question I pose to you is the same Darrin has posed and that stems from this: You are willing to embrace one side of the Scriptures, those you quote, even out of context. But you seem unwilling to even give consideration to the fact that your thinking about who God is and His sovereignty is in fact faulty and borderline blasphemous. I realize those are strong words, but consider that if God is who we believe him to be, from our position, then your position is clearly not tied in any way, shape, or form the God of Scripture. So far you have cast aspersions about our beliefs that we have derived from the Scriptures and we have dealt with your texts, now it is time for you to deal with the other texts. How do you answer those in the original post? We are all waiting with baited breath.

How do you KNOW you shouldn’t twist a text the other way to make Paul agree with James (for example)? Why don’t you just admit that they don’t say the same thing? Why not admit that the Bible isn’t as simple as it would be if it were completely consistent?

Some passages suggest eternal security. An honest reading of Hebrews 6:4-6 suggest otherwise by saying that people who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (which is not given to the unelect) may still “fall away”, a misnomer if they never attained the position from which to fall.

Scripture is knotty. There are intellectual problems of all sorts. The fact that no two Christians agree on every passage (despite having possession of the Holy Spirit) underlines this fact.

I will say this: I must personally reject Calvinism because, at least for me, it will ultimately end in an embrace of despair and evil. if Christ did not die for everyone, then I CANNOT assume He died for me. I may believe it, but believing something doesn’t make it so any more than believing the moon is made out of cheese makes it true. Even if I foolishly decided the odds were in my favor and that I’ve won this cosmic lottery, what I become then is this creature who is resigned to being happy at the expense of almost all other people who have ever lived. I’m no saint, but I don’t think I’m THAT callous.

I am very patient in most circumstances, but there are a few things I am going to address here where I have no patience for you and simply call you to repent.

James: Well, I’ve quoted Scripture as well. How do you know they were “quoted out of context”?

Because there is a context. You can only derive if something is out of context if it doesn’t fit the context. I have yet to see any real exegesis on your part.

Therefore What you’re doing is saying “this passage CAN’T mean such-and-such because if it did, my carefully constructed theological system would be sunk.”

No, this is what you are doing. I admit that Calvinism is a system, but a logical, rational, and biblical system. It seeks consistency. Your approach seeks inconsistency.

You read the passage through the lens of Calvinism and decide what it means based on what you’ve already decided is the truth.

Uh, no. I simly try to understand what the context is actually saying and then I try to see how other doctrines are touched upon through that understanding of what is said. Are Jesus and the apostles consistent or aren’t they?

How do you KNOW you shouldn’t twist a text the other way to make Paul agree with James (for example)?

Ok, here’s where I have no patience for you. I take Scripture twisting very seriously. You have failed to prove anything, except throwing out James, but never exegeting it. You have claimed over and over that the passage does not teach God as the author of evil and sin and yet, you have done no more that simply quote the verse as though that is enough. Darrin has answered your objections. I have as well. I am not claiming you are twisting the Scriptures, but rather are misunderstanding them. Twisting for your information would imply I really know what they say, but so that my “system” will work I make them say something else.

Why don’t you just admit that they don’t say the same thing? Why not admit that the Bible isn’t as simple as it would be if it were completely consistent?

So the Bible isn’t completely consistent? Is God completely inconsistent? Is He irrational? Illogical? I’ll simply let that statement of your stand on it’s own. It says more about what you believe the Bible and God to be than anything I could point out to you.

Some passages suggest eternal security. An honest reading of Hebrews 6:4-6 suggest otherwise by saying that people who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (which is not given to the unelect) may still “fall away”, a misnomer if they never attained the position from which to fall.

And you can’t see how that is totally inconsisent with the whole of Hebrews and the Scriptures? You really can’t see the hyperbole used in that passage? You can’t tell the difference between tasting the gift of the Holy Spirit (not given as you said) and actually having the indwelling Spirit? You can’t see that the point of Hebrews is to point to Christ and His work as superior to everything that came before Him? Instead you want to pull 3 verses out and claim that man can undo the perfect work of Christ? I am simply left shaking my head.

Scripture is knotty. There are intellectual problems of all sorts. The fact that no two Christians agree on every passage (despite having possession of the Holy Spirit) underlines this fact.

And I have never said there aren’t problems James. But the problems are not Scriptural, they are in fallen men such as us. The Word of God is perfect and I believe God gave it to us to understand, not so that we could say it was inconsistent.

I will say this: I must personally reject Calvinism because, at least for me, it will ultimately end in an embrace of despair and evil.

And the reason you do so is because you do not clearly understand. Tell me James, if those of us here don’t embrace evil and despair by glory in the God of Creation and in the grace He grants to us, then what is the difference. I suggest it is in your understanding.

if Christ did not die for everyone, then I CANNOT assume He died for me.

So let’s take your position to its end. If He didn’t die for everyone, in your mind that means you can’t believe He didn’t die for you. However, in order to be palatable for the bar of your mind, He must die for all. So, why should we present the gospel. If He died for every man who ever lived, no one is going to Hell. You will gather around the throne with Hitler and Moussolini. You will engage the Master with the likes of Nero and Saddam Hussein, not to mention every unrepentant evil man that the Scriputure says will be under the wrath of God in Hell forever. For when Christ was the propitiation for our sins, that means that He removed the wrath of God. Now He did that for His people, and He made me one of His people James. I didn’t make myself one. SDG. So we see that in order for you to embrace the Scriptures, they must mean what you think they must mean according to your own desires.

I may believe it, but believing something doesn’t make it so any more than believing the moon is made out of cheese makes it true.

Of course this is true of anyone.

Even if I foolishly decided the odds were in my favor and that I’ve won this cosmic lottery, what I become then is this creature who is resigned to being happy at the expense of almost all other people who have ever lived.

I am simply aghast at this statement. The perfection of the work of Christ on behalf of His people is now a “cosmic lottery”? The freely given grace and mercy bestowed upon rebel sinful men by the One True and Living Holy God is just a pick of the numbers? I truly believe that is blasphemous. I make no apologies for that statement. And no, you are completely wrong. If you are the recipient of the grace of God and it is not “at the expense of almost all other people who have ever lived.” It is at the expense of God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ as He freely lived a perfectly holy life and died as an atoning sacrifice for sinners, of which all those who believe are.

I’m no saint, but I don’t think I’m THAT callous.

Well, if you have such a low view of sin, Scripture, Christ, His perfect work and the Triune God, then maybe you are not a saint. However, I wait just to make sure I’m understanding you properly before I pronounce such a thing. No matter what the case may be, you are in need of repentance and quite possibly true saving faith.

First of all, I didn’t mean to imply that you were intentionally twisting Scriptures or being dishonest … I think you believe what you tell us you think it means.

1) ” I admit that Calvinism is a system, but a logical, rational, and biblical system. It seeks consistency”

I guess we also need to define what “consistency” means. Is it consistent to say that God “wants” people to do the evil He does not want them to do, as if He has two opposing and simultaneous wills? I don’t know. Is it? If you mean that things cannot contain mutually exclusive properties, then it seems this whole notion would fail that test. (Even if there are inconsistencies, though, that doesn’t necessarily bother me. 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 disagree as to the age of Ahaziah when he began to rule … a trivial example, but it doesn’t mean I must toss out Scripture in its entirety because of it. )

2) ” Is God completely inconsistent? Is He irrational? Illogical?”

Why should God fit in a box? Why should we expect Him to be entirely understandable and comprehensible? Aren’t we always hearing that “His thoughts are not our thoughts”? Aren’t we trying to apply human standards of rationality and logic to Him by insisting that His word must mean one thing or another and forcing it to fit into whatever system we happen to believe? I don’t expect Scripture to be gibberish, but no, I also don’t expect it to be completely “logical” or “rational” in human terms.

3) “If He didn’t die for everyone, in your mind that means you can’t believe He didn’t die for you. However, in order to be palatable for the bar of your mind, He must die for all.”

I didn’t say He couldn’t have, but I have no way of knowing whether He did or didn’t now do I, if your system is true? If I believe what you say is the truth, that He died for a few, then on what grounds should I accept in my mind that this gift was intended for me? You’ve said yourself that people can be “deluded” into thinking they’re believers. Why should I be any different? To say “I believe He died for me, therefore it MUST be so” seems arrogant.

4) “If He died for every man who ever lived, no one is going to Hell.”

I think we have different expectations as to the type of “effectiveness” His sacrifice had. Haven’t you ever wondered why if His death made everything “complete” why the elect, upon their becoming regenerated, weren’t immediately sanctified and why they still dealt with a sin nature? Why is that still there? Why not just enter into immediate perfection if that was their ultimate destiny anyhow? Was Christ’s death somehow insufficient that sanctification needed to happen via a process (instead if instantly)? I think it’s just as erroneous to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice guarantees salvation.
Hebrews 10:29
” 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

A terrifying passage to be sure, but tell me, when does God sanctify a member of the “non-elect”?

I know people are set in their beliefs, but I’m just throwing up these things for conversation so I can understand where people stand on these issues. What I seem to be hearing is we have different expectations of Scripture. Calvinism expects a certain type of consistency and logic (although one I’m hard-pressed to comprehend), and I guess I expect less from what the Word says about God than from God Himself. The Scripture is important, but it is not an end, it only points to it, a sign if you will.

- James

I am wondering if I respond to your questions in your last post, if you will even seriously consider them. I have yet to hear you actually respond with exegesis to the passages Nathan first quoted. I don’t see that you have a high view of God or the Scriptures since you think they are inconsistent………..and I might add, should be inconsistent. So, if you will not hear up until this point, I am guessing that you are really not interested in biblical answers to your questions but just want to pose more questions, without actually having to deal with the answers we give to you.