# The Eternal Decree of God?



## Supersillymanable (Sep 27, 2012)

I have recently come to a greater understanding and appreciation of why many on here love the confessions and appreciate them so much, which I see as a very good thing. Maybe even a step towards confessionalism... Anyway, I have been reading through Dr. Reymond's systematic in which he quotes part of the WCF, and I'm actually struggling with some of these concepts. I would really appreciate some of my reformed brethren on here to help me here... I do not know whether it is simply hardness of heart on my part, or simply I am not grasping some concepts that Reymond and the confession are putting forward. So here goes:

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions. (WCF, III/i-ii)

Now, for me, my head really cannot get around this. I have come across the issue of God's sovereignty and manage to marry it up to my understanding of God's goodness and mercy etc, but it has become a real struggle for me recently. My line of thought goes thus: God is not the author of sin. But God has decreed that whatsoever comes to pass will come to pass. Therefore, my sin has already been decreed by God, and there is now way of me not doing it. If this is so, how am I a) responsible, and b) needing of saving because I had no choice in the matter, and c) How can God hate the sin he decreed me doing and therefore require payment for it?

The confession says that the decree doesn't do violence to our wills, but that makes no sense to me. It doesn't work in my head... If God has decreed it and so there is no way we can go against it, how are we choosing to sin? Surely God is choosing for us to choose to sin, the choice really being God's, not our own. 

I don't want to start an argument here at all. I really want to humbly place a struggle of mine before you guys and ask you please, can you help me with this one? It's been plaguing me for days and I'm finding it hard to worship, as my mind is continually coming back to the thought that every action I take is not really mine, but the decree of God and is therefore meaningless, and various other thoughts. I thoroughly believe the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God in all things, and His Goodness in all things, how do we put these two together?

I'd understand if we were unable to choose between sin and not sin when unregenerate, and so needed God to regenerate us which we could do nothing about, thereby giving us a choice between sin or not, but that doesn't seem to be the teaching of scripture to me. Or am I simply wrong in what scripture teaches?

Sorry if this is a little bit of a ramble...


----------



## py3ak (Sep 27, 2012)

Lawrence, you are not alone in having difficulty with these things. It is an avenue the devil is fond of using to get us to question God's goodness, just as he did to Eve. This is a place to consciously decide that you will consider God to be true and every man (including yourself, if need be) a liar.

In answer to the question, though, the teaching of the confession is that the sovereignty of God in his eternal decree is what establishes the liberty and contingency of second causes. In other words, without the context of God's eternal decree, you would have no freedom to choose; nothing would come to pass because of something else happening first. Nothing would exist. But if you can think of something existing, it would be random chaos. 

It is God's decree that establishes volition and causation. Your choices, then, can be real and genuinely yours _only in the context of God's decree_. Because God is the creator and you are a creature, God upholds you and sustains you in being every moment: that also means he can determine everything that comes to pass, without needing to override your choices or the chain of causality. Part of God's decree is to make you and preserve you as a rational, volitional creature: one who makes decisions and exercises his will. God's decree then holds you up precisely in that capacity. God as the Creator doesn't need to offer violence to any part of his creation to cause it to do his will: he above everyone knows how it works, and can sovereignly and certainly steer it to its proper goal without coercion.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Sep 27, 2012)

Thank you Reuben. And thank you for letting me know I'm not alone in these things. I've literally been consumed with these thoughts for days. DO you recommend any good reading on the topic? 



py3ak said:


> It is God's decree that establishes volition and causation. Your choices, then, can be real and genuinely yours only in the context of God's decree. Because God is the creator and you are a creature, God upholds you and sustains you in being every moment



I think this was what my mind was trying to work to, but wasn't quite making it there, if you understand what I mean?

If I may clarify a question though, if God has already decreed what is to happen, has he decreed down to even the decisions for us to sin or not, or is that simply accommodated into His plan? I understand we aren't ever going to understand fully the schematics, and don't for a moment presume to get one from God and certainly not from anyone else! But it would help if I more fully understood these things, got my thinking correct, to be able to say, when the Devil tempts me to believe otherwise God works all things for my good because I love Him. 

One thing I have constantly reminded myself of in the past few weeks, is that God doesn't need to lie to me. He has made the things hard to grasp in scripture plain and has no pretences about them. If He wants to, He could wipe me out in a second or simply cloud my mind to the issue so I forget about it (not that He would, but speaking hypothetically), so I needn't think He is anything but what He says He is. The issue was simply understanding His mercy and grace through it so I can praise Him for it.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 27, 2012)

The best reading is the book of Job, Romans 8-11, and the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Without the cross our idea of God must be perniciously wrong. It may be that we will never be able to draw a diagram that really adequately exhibits the answers to the questions we have about the sovereignty of God, but the cross is critical for the transformation of our thinking so that this truth turns from a nagging doubt into a source of encouragement. And Paul's great reminder that God is God and we are not, Job's heartfelt apprehension of that same fact, is the necessary starting point. If we start off any investigation of these matters with an idea of calling God to account, of sitting in judgment on him, we are so consumed by pride it is no wonder we cannot come to any proper conclusions.



Supersillymanable said:


> Thank you Reuben. And thank you for letting me know I'm not alone in these things. I've literally been consumed with these thoughts for days. DO you recommend any good reading on the topic?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



God has decreed everything, even the smallest detail. Nothing is outside the scope of his decree. But though nothing happens without God's decree, that decree does not operate in the same way in every respect. This is where there is a difference between effecting and permitting: not that anything is uncertain, but that God permits actions to be sinful; he does not _effect_ the sinfulness of the action, even though he brings about the action as such. 
This can be a bit difficult to grasp, because it requires learning to consider distinct aspects of something that is always experienced as blended. It can be like hearing an oinophile talk about undertones of walnut and soot and wet cat that are somehow contained in some bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon: it's quite confusing to the person who doesn't know much about wine, and one always wonders how exactly the oinophile knows what wet cat tastes like in any case. A habit of mind has to be developed in both cases.
Perhaps an illustration (not original to me) will help. If a man rides a donkey, the going of the donkey and his destination are the result of the man's action. But if the donkey limps, the faltering or defect in his going are not the result of the man's action. Similarly, what we do, the fact that we do it, the consequences of doing it, are all matters that God effects; but the defectiveness with which we do it, is permitted in God's decree, and therefore quite certain, but the deficiency proceeds wholly from ourselves. God being entirely perfect cannot himself be deficient, or produce deficiency; he can permit it, and thus bring it about, but precisely by negation, by withholding his concurrence from that aspect of the action.


----------



## Loopie (Sep 27, 2012)

Lawrence, I would very much agree with what Ruben has said. There is no doubt that fully comprehending the eternal nature of God, his omniscience, and his eternal decree is impossible for us humans. We live in a universe that is composed of space-time. I honestly do not know what it is like to 'think' like a being that is all-knowing, unchanging, and eternal. Therefore it is safe to say that I will never be able to fully appreciate and understand what it means to 'think' like God. 

So even though everything is determined in the sense that God both decrees and knows all things that will happen, this does not change the fact that I am responsible for my actions. God never once had to 'force' me to sin. That was natural for me from the day I was conceived. God was not standing behind me with a big gun saying: "I command you to sin!". So in that sense, I am fully responsible for my rebellion against my Creator. This of course does not change the fact that God has decreed all things. Certainly God decreed that Jesus would die on the cross, but this does not mean that the Romans and Pharisees should be rewarded for crucifying him. They were acting on behalf of their own selfish purposes, and for that they are held accountable.

Other than reading Scripture, as Ruben suggested, I would strongly recommend _Freedom of the Will_ by Jonathan Edwards. It has certainly helped me to better clarify my understanding of 'freedom', 'choice', 'will', and 'accountability'. Anyways, I completely sympathize with your thoughts and feelings on the topic of God's sovereignty. Ultimately we must trust what Scripture teaches, while at the same time avoiding speculation. There is nothing wrong with trying to learn more about God, and trying to better understand and appreciate his ways, but I think Calvin brings up something that we should always keep in mind when he suggests that we ought to cease inquiry when God's word is silent on the matter.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 28, 2012)

What a great topic and question. I think we all encounter these questions in our walk into Calvinism. Lawrence, thank you for asking it because I know many of us are edified in hearing these answers.

To Ruben: Is going into predestination, providence and lapsarian views at all relevant? Someone once shared on PB the order of decrees (I think from Warfield?) and I found that helpful.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Sep 28, 2012)

Thank you all for your responses. 



py3ak said:


> the cross is critical for the transformation of our thinking so that this truth turns from a nagging doubt into a source of encouragement.



This is something I'd felt God put His finger on as I read through my Bible day by day and sermons I had been listening to for the past few months. My eyes have slowly been lingering upon other things other than Jesus' cross. Not even bad things in and of themselves. My faith had become something that did not find its epicenter at the cross... Thank you for your encouragement once again. The analogy was also quite helpful...




Loopie said:


> Other than reading Scripture, as Ruben suggested, I would strongly recommend Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards. It has certainly helped me to better clarify my understanding of 'freedom', 'choice', 'will', and 'accountability'. Anyways, I completely sympathize with your thoughts and feelings on the topic of God's sovereignty. Ultimately we must trust what Scripture teaches, while at the same time avoiding speculation.



I have the essential works of Edwards, so I'll definitely give it a read. I started it not long ago, but didn't get the time to get far into it... And I agree. Speculation is simply helping fuel doubt, which fuels unbelief which fuels sin. I just trying to fill my head with God's truths from His word at the moment and remind myself of His goodness as I seek Him to change my hard heart to true repentance and joy in the Cross.




Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Is going into predestination, providence and lapsarian views at all relevant?



I did wonder about Lapsarian views. I've often thought of them as irrelevant. But I see how they could have a bearing on the question of God's sovereignty. Thoughts appreciated by anyone else on that also...


----------



## py3ak (Sep 28, 2012)

Lawrence, with regard to Edwards' _Freedom of the Will_ you may find this previous discussion informative. However helpful or otherwise people may find Edwards' view to be, it was not the view that lay under the phrasing found in the Westminster Confession.

Seeking understanding is highly commendable: but as we climb higher we need to make sure we remain solidly rooted. We never outgrow the simple matters of the catechism - they are always vital for us, how learned so ever we become. Any theological exploration that tends to withdraw our minds and hearts from the great facts outlined in the 10 Commandments, the Lord's prayer, and the Apostle's Creed is an exploration that puts us in serious risk of being puffed up, rather than edified. To be a good Christian, the quieting of the soul as a weaned child, looking to God as a handmaiden looks to her mistress, desiring the sincere milk of the word, and cleaving to the simplicity that is in Christ is at least as important as adding to virtue knowledge, or adding greater knowledge to the foundation of the doctrine of Christ. I am therefore encouraged to hear of your resolve to hold hard by the Cross even as you explore new areas of theology.

Jackie, all those things are of course part of exploring the doctrine of the decree, and as such are helpful; but that doesn't mean they are a good starting point for investigation. Since we understand things discursively, piece by piece, there must always be an order in our learning: and some pedagogical orders are more helpful than others. Once we've taken up our proper place as God's creatures and approach the topic with an appropriate humility, and as we bear the cross steadfastly in mind to remind our hearts of the love of God while highlighting the transcendent and unpredictable majesty of his ways, I think the next step is probably the doctrine of providence with special attention for the doctrine of concurrence. That's where the distinctions are made that enable us to see that God does not tempt any man with evil, and yet that he works all things after the counsel of his own will. I would think the question of the order of the decrees would conveniently come in still later, after the actual contents of God's decree have been considered, placing the lapsarian question very near the end of an investigation of the sovereignty of God. But these are, of course, merely my own ideas, and they are based mostly on my own experience of being confused about a lot of these questions, in part because of not having enough of a framework to know what question the answers I received actually went with. It's like a test where you have to match the question and answer: those are a lot easier if both appear in the same order!


----------

