# A Layman's Explanation of God's Eternal Decree



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 26, 2006)

*WCF III.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*.



*WCF III.VI*


> As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, *foreordained all the means thereunto*. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.



What is the best way of explaining the bolded statements above to someone who is just discovering Reformed doctrines? 

I have friends from my former seeker sensitive church who are not versed in Holy scripture but have been recently compelled to search the scriptures due to the discovery of Calvinism. Scripture is the most clear and obvious defense, but the philosophical application tends to not be so strait forward and easy to comprehend. And yet the first objections raised upon learning these doctrines is how can God control everything without turning man into robots?

How would you explain to a layman how God knows each and every thought and detail without foresight into an unknown future and yet does not control everyone like they are preprogrammed machines? In other words, how is violence not offered to the will of the creatures and the liberty or contingency of second causes not taken away, but rather established while at the same time God being omniscient?

Personally I fully embrace and believe this section of the confession and have read a fair share of explanations of it; however all those explanations tend to require a crash course in philosophy at the least. I certainly do not expect all those who are not mighty in the scriptures to minor in Philosophy in order to understand the Protestant confession. The trick is, understanding it and explaining it in layman's terms.

So what is your layman's explanation of God's eternal decree?


----------



## Civbert (Jan 26, 2006)

*"nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures" *

God never forces us to act against our wills - He changes our wills - he re-orients our wills. But he does not makes us unthinking machines. 

*nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established*

God acts through second causes.

*foreordained all the means thereunto.* 

Even second causes occur according to His sovereign will.

Why would you think God does not have foresight? The future in _not_ unknown to God.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Why would you think God does not have foresight? The future in _not_ unknown to God.



*WCF III.II*


> Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; *yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future*, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.



My point is that God does not base his decree on foresight.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 26, 2006)

Ooh. I see. You want to avoid the "God elects those whom He knows in advance will accept Him".

You don't want to say God's only declares what will come to simply because he can see what will come to pass but has no control or sovereignty over the future. 

I suppose you could say that God's foreknowledge is not limited to a linear future, but he knows also all potential consequences of all potential actions - at least from our perspective. I think God exists outside of time - not as we experience it - so the future is not simply potential outcomes - but actual outcomes according to his will -  but maybe that confuses things. 

...beginning to see how this can be difficult to explain.


----------



## Casey (Jan 26, 2006)

> How would you explain to a layman how God knows each and every thought and detail without foresight into an unknown future and yet does not control everyone like they are preprogrammed machines?


Perhaps it is as simple as saying that machines don't have free will, whereas we do (WCF 9), and that's why the "machine" analogy is never appropriate. We have free will (the Calvinistic sort) and are responsible for everything we do, but God has decreed it all (as the First Cause).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 27, 2006)

bump

(thank you for the responses so far)


----------



## Robin (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Personally I fully embrace and believe this section of the confession and have read a fair share of explanations of it; however all those explanations tend to require a crash course in philosophy at the least. I certainly do not expect all those who are not mighty in the scriptures to minor in Philosophy in order to understand the Protestant confession. The trick is, understanding it and explaining it in layman's terms.
> 
> So what is your layman's explanation of God's eternal decree?



First-off...forget trying to understand H O W. The Scripture does not teach HOW God is God. 

Holy Scripture declares God's attributes by revealing His works in the lives of people. The story of Joseph for example, is rich with two points: the brothers acted in sin and were fully responsible for it; then Joseph states that God meant to bring things about, for good.

1. Man is fully culpable and "free" to act 
2. God is not the author of evil, yet appoints and is in control of all things

Here is a mystery and a tension for man. It goes against man's deep-pull towards "being god" himself.

Start with what Scripture says. Don't pull-out verses; read large portions of Text.

Perhaps it will be the first time your friends ever really read the Bible in the way it was intended to be read?

blessings,

Robin 

[Edited on 1-27-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Jan 27, 2006)

Also....Chris....

The opposite position (Arminian theology) has a much bigger problem when they insist man can somehow thwart God.

It means: God is not really God; He is not all powerful; He can change; He is not in control of creation; He is not reliable due to these variables. How can we depend on Him to keep His promises?

Ultimately, God is not worthy of true worship and mankind is in serious trouble; alone in a universe out of control. (despair)

Something to think about carefully.....

r.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Thanks Robin.

This was basically John MacArthur's approach when I listened to a sermon he did on election. He insisted on saying don't try to reconcile the conflict and then proceeded to list other "axioms" that we cannot quite resolve such as the 'how' of the Trinity, the 'how' of God authoring scripture but yet people like Moses, David, add Peter authoring it too, and the 'how' of Paul's statement that he lives but it is not him, but Christ living in him.

That works, I suppose. I suppose Arminians and Molinists could say the same thing then. God knows all yet He has given man a free will that enables him to act outside of God's will. Don't try to reconcile how that is possible, it is a mystery just like the trinity.

But I guess this serves as the best philosophical answer for those who do not wish to study the philosophical argument.


----------



## Robin (Jan 27, 2006)

Well, Chris....as we know, Scripture teaches we are not to embrace the "philosophies of the world"...because God's Holy Word has its own philosophy built into it. It's called "truth."

Use the actual words of Scripture to address the retorts. Exposure to God's Word is toxic towards unbelief.

Paul anticipates his readers exasperated question in Romans 9:13-23

As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" *But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?* Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 

(read this whole chapter for full effect...)



Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Well, Chris....as we know, Scripture teaches we are not to embrace the "philosophies of the world"...because God's Holy Word has its own philosophy built into it. It's called "truth."



Greg Bahnsen could not have said it any better!


----------



## Robin (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...





r.


----------

