"God did not predestinate, but permitted."

[fralo4truth]

Hi all,

What is the best way to respond to those who wanna make the argument that God did not predestinate but merely permitted, especially when addressing acts of evil?

Does not predestination includes God's permissive will?

Thank you.

 

[chuckd]

I think the "all things" in Eph. 1:11 includes acts committed with evil intent. And several saints included not only the good, but also the bad in God's will (Gen. 50:20, Job 1:21). Seems he didn't merely "permit" in those cases.

 

[A Tulip Not a Daisy]

Lamentations 3:37-38
37 ¶Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

I am reading a great book by Jerry Bridges, Trusting God Even When Life Hurts. He speaks to this issue by saying that,
"This passage of Scripture offends many people. They find it difficult to accept that both calamities and good things come from God. People often say if God is love how could He allow such a calamity? But Jesus Himslef affirmed God's sovereignty in calamity in John 19:10-11
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. Jesus acknowledged God's sovereign control over His life.

Because God's sacrifice of His Son for our sins is such an amazing act of love toward us, we tend to overlook that it was for Jesus an excruciating experience beyond all we can imagine. It was for Jesus in His humanity a calamity sufficient to cause Him to pray for God to take this cup from him, but He did not waver in His assertion of God's sovereign control.

Rather than being offended over the Bible's assertion of God's sovereignty in both good and calamity, believers should be comforted by it. Whatever our particular calamity or adversity may be we may be sure that our Father has a loving purpose in it."

 

[Gforce9]

Gen. 50:20 (ESV) 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.

"Permitted" carries the idea of passivity. "Meant" conveys intention. As Joe's brothers intended evil, God intended (not permitted) and carried out infallibly, the good He intended.

 

[A5pointer]

He causes it all......to be frank. whether we say active or passive is another level.

 

[moral necessity]

Hi all,

What is the best way to respond to those who wanna make the argument that God did not predestinate but merely permitted, especially when addressing acts of evil?

Does not predestination includes God's permissive will?

Thank you.

Sure...predestination includes the idea that God gives permission for his predetermined will to be accomplished. He does not limit his involvement to that of being an outside bystander that allows his creation to carry itself along as it wishes. Rather, his Spirit is actively involved in the movement of every molecule and every being in the entire universe, even down to our very affections and our wills, yet without violating our activity in choosing and our accountability. He bends the hearts of all people in the directions that they go.

I think the best way to respond would be a way that maintains fellowship. It's not worth making it a divisive issue if God is not compelling that person to inquire with sincerity about predestination. I would probably say, "God does "permit", in a certain sense of the word, but are you willing to go further and consider a God who also makes from a lump of clay a vessel for destruction, as well as a vessel for honor? Would that God offend you?"

Guaging from his response would determine how and if I continued the conversation much longer.

Blessings and prayers...

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Ask your protagonist if he believes that God *could* do something to prevent the evil actions that, in His providence, occur. If He *could* prevent them, but did not, what does that say about the attempt to "exonerate" God, by saying that he only "permitted" evil acts? If a lifeguard had the ability to save a drowning man, but only permitted him to drown, (he did not actively drown him) would we exonerate him? This analogy of course breaks down--because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, whereas the lifeguard "comes upon" a circumstance. God never does.

 

[Andres]

Gen. 50:20 (ESV) 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.

"Permitted" carries the idea of passivity. "Meant" conveys intention. As Joe's brothers intended evil, God intended (not permitted) and carried out infallibly, the good He intended.

I often take issue with those who say God merely "permits" things to happen and my reasoning is as Greg has stated. To say God merely "permits" things takes away from His sovereignty.

 

[MW]

The Confession rejects "bare permission." Sin is ordained and overruled. This is faithful to the express testimony as well as the evangelical message of Scripture, Acts 2:23; 4:28. It is impossible to conceive of redemption without this fundamental belief.

Besides this, God is righteous to avenge wrongdoing, and the truth that He uses men to punish men is to be found throughout the Scriptural record. As these instruments are themselves sinners it is not possible to deny that God positively uses sin without expressly contradicting Scripture.

At the same time, God is not the author of sin, so there is a need to explain in what sense God ordains and overrules sin. The most common form of explanation is that which distinguishes between action and relation. In God we move, so every action as an action requires His power. Evil, however, is a relation. It is judged on the basis of a law which God Himself has made and to which God Himself is not subject. The governor who executes a criminal for murder is not himself committing murder because the governor is the judge and administrator of the law and not subject to it, James 4:11-12.

 

[MarieP]

What is the best way to respond to those who wanna make the argument that God did not predestinate but merely permitted, especially when addressing acts of evil?

It makes the death of Christ to be something other than the predetermined plan of the Holy Trinity.

 

[sevenzedek]

I think the best way to respond would be a way that maintains fellowship. It's not worth making it a divisive issue if God is not compelling that person to inquire with sincerity about predestination. I would probably say, "God does "permit", in a certain sense of the word, but are you willing to go further and consider a God who also makes from a lump of clay a vessel for destruction, as well as a vessel for honor? Would that God offend you?"

Guaging from his response would determine how and if I continued the conversation much longer.

I appreciate this response. Sometimes it is better to force feed truth to those not willing to hear it.

 

[ClayPot]

As has already been mentioned, Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 absolutely refute that God merely consents to the sinful acts of men:

Acts 2:23
23 this Jesus,[a] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27-28

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

 

[ThyWord IsTruth]

Buy them a copy of "Absolute Predestination" by Jerome Zanchius and lovingly ask them to read it and then you will address any issues they may have against the scripture proofs that this Italian reformer used in compiling his work on predestination. The book is not a long read but is very informative. Just pray that the message will be received in balance of scripture lest the reader turn into a fatalist.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

As has already been mentioned, Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 absolutely refute that God merely consents to the sinful acts of men:

Acts 2:23
23 this Jesus,[a] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27-28

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Simply put, these passages above give the "how much more" argument serious teeth. If Jehovah arranged by predeterminate plan the death (at the hands of the vilest of sinners) of the most pure being (a member of Godhead Himself) who least deserved anything to be perpetrated against Him, how much more does He not actively prearrange other matters down to the very least?

 

[sevenzedek]

Here is an idea for another thread: Do people believe what they want to believe?

Why does anyone believe what they believe? A person convinced that God merely permits evil probably does not want to be convinced that God actually wills evil. There is too much baggage that must be dealt with. Personally, I have been through many theological changes since becoming a Christian (Church of God to OPC) and I confess that every major change of my understanding has been provoked by conflict of conscience or a conflict of life circumstances. That is why I not only try to convince my JW neighbor that his theology is wrong when I have a fleeting opportunity to offer something contrary to his understanding, but I also pray that he would experience some kind of upheaval in the church where he now attends. Let it be an argument with someone or a matter of conscience concerning doctrine. I don't care. In other words, either a person's worldview needs to already be in a state flux, or their worldview must be shocked in order to get them into that state of flux. And my experience has been that large discussions often do not do anything to convince a person that their understanding is wrong; but often solidify them in their position.

We are stubborn like sheep. Sometimes we don't go in the direction we're supposed to go if we are not prodded.

I think it is best to respond with something short and pithy, and continue the discussion if they take the bait. I might respond by saying that God willingly allows and permits evil totally on purpose. and that he knew x-y-z was going to happen before it happened. Then, if they continue the conversation appearing to be open to change, then continue the conversation. At the very least, they should be addressing and wrestling with the idea of God's volitional permitting something of which he was pre-cognizant , otherwise it is like having a conversation with someone who doesn't get their own argument. If you continue the conversation you have just joined their very own circus. I should know, I have been on both sides of the fence (remember Church of God to OPC).

The best way I can think to respond is to say that you should pray. Then, after you have offered a response, pray some more. God is the one who is going to have to "dash their ships to Tarshish" before they will have a reason to change what they really want to believe anyway.

 

[kappazei]

He causes it all......to be frank. whether we say active or passive is another level.

Ofcourse when you say that, you're still keeping in mind the definitive statement that...'When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.'

Here's somthing from the Gospel Coalition Is God the Author of Sin? Jonathan Edwards’ Answer – Justin Taylor


“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” ~Jonathan Edwards
But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.” Is God the Author of Sin? Jonathan Edwards’ Answer – Justin Taylor

 

[kappazei]

It seems to me that in our efforts to evangelize and defend the faith, we sometimes forget that our God is more than capable of defending Himself. Maybe I need to learn to mentally step back from the witness-ee at some point and say, 'I don't know...why don't you ask Him directly? Here's how...'

 

[Marcus417]

I am glad someone posted this topic because I have been trying to nail down my personal beliefs on the divine decrees and human responsibility. Michael Horton seems to make the argument in his book "For Calvinism that man was created with free will then chose to fall thus bonding their will to sin. It seems to me that this would imply that God will passively decree somethings and actively decree somethings. God decreed the fall to happen when he created the world, but the fall occurred through secondary causes so God is not morally responsible for it but he did passively decree it to occur. If I am in error please let me know.

 

[MW]

It seems to me that this would imply that God will passively decree somethings and actively decree somethings. God decreed the fall to happen when he created the world, but the fall occurred through secondary causes so God is not morally responsible for it but he did passively decree it to occur. If I am in error please let me know.

A leap is being made from the decree in eternity to its execution in time. The decree itself is fully active on God's part. The execution of the decree includes elements which He is pleased to permit.

 

[newcreature]

I can't help but think of how God hardened Pharaoh's heart repeatedly. God predetermined that Pharaoh would sin and He was glorified to deliver Israel. If it is that simple, then I would have to say our God is all knowing and all powerful, if He didn't want a thing to occur He would not allow it. Therefore everything that is must be His sovereign will. This is not merely passive, but is active. Even though He is not the author of sin, He permits it to occur and thereby it must be His will.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

On the matter of God ordaining everything, I like to remind folks that God wills righteously what men do wickedly.