Gods sovereignty and our responsibility.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Luketramel21

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello everyone! my names Luke and im new here. I Have held to the reformed position for a few years now, and it has been my comfort. One thing I've never really been able to grasp is, is our everyday little things such as clicking a pen, to choosing a certain kind of bread at the store, apart of Gods before time molding all of time? forgive me if I am wording this wrong, its hard to gather these thoughts..were not robots or puppets, are we?
 
Hello everyone! my names Luke and im new here. I Have held to the reformed position for a few years now, and it has been my comfort. One thing I've never really been able to grasp is, is our everyday little things such as clicking a pen, to choosing a certain kind of bread at the store, apart of Gods before time molding all of time? forgive me if I am wording this wrong, its hard to gather these thoughts..were not robots or puppets, are we?
Welcome Luke. The short answer is, no we are not robots, but here is what the Westminster Confession says.
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.
God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
Explaining how that works is something I don't yet know how to do. There's some discussion and a collection of quotes at this webpage.
 
Hello everyone! my names Luke and im new here. I Have held to the reformed position for a few years now, and it has been my comfort. One thing I've never really been able to grasp is, is our everyday little things such as clicking a pen, to choosing a certain kind of bread at the store, apart of Gods before time molding all of time? forgive me if I am wording this wrong, its hard to gather these thoughts..were not robots or puppets, are we?
Considering this is ultimately a mystery, we can't completely explain it but we can alleviate the contradiction. So where does the problem come from?
Well if we envision both God and man on the same plane of existence than words like liberty and sovereignty mean the same thing for both parties. Being "good Calvinists" we side with God and he becomes a dictator who forces us to do evil.
Now some want to "protect God from himself" so they limit his sovereignty to make room for our "genuine freedom", so he's not a monster. Both options are the only ones available if we place God and man on the same level of existence. Because the terms must roughly be meant in the same way.
Now is this the fundamental picture that scripture proposes? No because we're not on the same level of existence as God. He is the Creator and we are the creature, two different kinds of beings. The only way to argue for the former scenario is if God and man exist in a third realm in which both parties participate in. This third realm is morality in this case by which both parties are judged against but that makes the third realm more ultimate or "god-like" than God himself. This is because even God must be judged by this third realm to see if he measures up.
So the alternative is an analogical relationship to these terms. We mean sovereignty and liberty for God differently than we mean those same terms for man. They are both similar and different because the two different beings we are comparing are similar and different. We are made in his image but an image of a thing is not exactly the same as the original thing. It's only an image.
Cornelius Van Til in his early PhD thesis railed against this notion of any (in this case Idealism and Pragmatism of his day) participation in a third realm by God and man. The Creator/creature distinction, that's fundamental to his whole thinking, demands a difference because we're dealing with two different things (not two things on a third realm of scale of being or something). One thing on one side of the scale and another thing on a lesser side of the scale. There's still the being measured against the scale.
Now you may notice that this answer doesn't answer or explain all of our questions in this regard. Why is that? Well that's because of mystery. An analogical relationship between God and man alleviates the logical contradiction but doesn't give us access to all the answers we seek.
So the question is only a question because the two parties are framed in a way that is umbilical. But God did not see fit to provide a detailed explanation of how he is sovereign and yet we are free. So there's a mystery involved.
Think about it this way, does any person owe you a complete explanation of everything they do or say? No that person might simply respond with "just cause" and you can't appeal to any third thing to demand an explanation. In the same but analogical way, God doesn't owe us anything (let alone an explanation for this).
I know this is heady stuff here but the answer is three fold.
1. The problem is only a problem if we conceive of the situation between God and man in an umbilical way (existence of a third but greater realm more ultimate than either party).
2. Analogical relationship between both parties solves the logical contradiction problem.
3. But the solution doesn't explain everything so we appeal to mystery. If the other person doesn't like that than they must prove that they have a right to that knowledge.
I can elaborate on anything you or anyone else wants but don't stretch the analogies beyond their intended purpose. I also promise I don't have all the answers but I will try.
 

Here's a good essay by Michael Horton on this that adds a thorough biblical explanation of what I meant. Going through Romans 9.
 

Here's an excellent, but difficult, review and explanation of the Reformed Tradition on this subject. It's a review of Richard Muller's book on the subject. I put this out there to show that the Reformed Tradition never had a problem with this subject and the answers to your question have always been there.
My first response, I hope and pray, alleviated the philosophical problem involved. Michael Horton's essay shows how it's not a problem for the biblical view of things. This review shows, in technical language, that it's not a problem for the Reformed Tradition either.
This problem arises because we frame a biblical scenario in contemporary thought process and it makes no sense. But our tradition tried to use the thinking available for their time to recapture the biblical scenario because we (following the tradition) must regulate our thinking by scripture.
I hope this all helps.
 
https://www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-us

Here's the last essay I'll post but it's very good at all this.
 
The short answer is that God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible.
Amen..John MacArthur once said "all there good we do is God and all the bad is us..we are held responsible"
Post automatically merged:
Considering this is ultimately a mystery, we can't completely explain it but we can alleviate the contradiction. So where does the problem come from?Well if we envision both God and man on the same plane of existence than words like liberty and sovereignty mean the same thing for both parties. Being "good Calvinists" we side with God and he becomes a dictator who forces us to do evil.Now some want to "protect God from himself" so they limit his sovereignty to make room for our "genuine freedom", so he's not a monster. Both options are the only ones available if we place God and man on the same level of existence. Because the terms must roughly be meant in the same way.Now is this the fundamental picture that scripture proposes? No because we're not on the same level of existence as God. He is the Creator and we are the creature, two different kinds of beings. The only way to argue for the former scenario is if God and man exist in a third realm in which both parties participate in. This third realm is morality in this case by which both parties are judged against but that makes the third realm more ultimate or "god-like" than God himself. This is because even God must be judged by this third realm to see if he measures up.So the alternative is an analogical relationship to these terms. We mean sovereignty and liberty for God differently than we mean those same terms for man. They are both similar and different because the two different beings we are comparing are similar and different. We are made in his image but an image of a thing is not exactly the same as the original thing. It's only an image.Cornelius Van Til in his early PhD thesis railed against this notion of any (in this case Idealism and Pragmatism of his day) participation in a third realm by God and man. The Creator/creature distinction, that's fundamental to his whole thinking, demands a difference because we're dealing with two different things (not two things on a third realm of scale of being or something). One thing on one side of the scale and another thing on a lesser side of the scale. There's still the being measured against the scale.Now you may notice that this answer doesn't answer or explain all of our questions in this regard. Why is that? Well that's because of mystery. An analogical relationship between God and man alleviates the logical contradiction but doesn't give us access to all the answers we seek.So the question is only a question because the two parties are framed in a way that is umbilical. But God did not see fit to provide a detailed explanation of how he is sovereign and yet we are free. So there's a mystery involved.
Think about it this way, does any person owe you a complete explanation of everything they do or say? No that person might simply respond with "just cause" and you can't appeal to any third thing to demand an explanation. In the same but analogical way, God doesn't owe us anything (let alone an explanation for this).
I know this is heady stuff here but the answer is three fold.
1. The problem is only a problem if we conceive of the situation between God and man in an umbilical way (existence of a third but greater realm more ultimate than either party).
2. Analogical relationship between both parties solves the logical contradiction problem.
3. But the solution doesn't explain everything so we appeal to mystery. If the other person doesn't like that than they must prove that they have a right to that knowledge.
I can elaborate on anything you or anyone else wants but don't stretch the analogies beyond their intended purpose. I also promise I don't have all the answers but I will try.

Paul says in romans 11:33 "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how unfathomable His ways!"
 
Have you read the Muller book listed above? I’m looking to read it and am interested in your thoughts.

I've only skimmed it to get a sense of the middle ground he is taking between Vos and Helm. My aim was to go back later and track the arguments but regrettably other things have intervened. One point that caught my attention was the different source material for discussing specific questions. I can say at this stage that I'm not so sure about some of my earlier findings on synchronic contingency. Perhaps it is enough to agree with Muller that it is a multivalent problem (I forget the exact words he uses). It could be that various theologians are looking at it on different levels and so there is a degree of talking past each other. My sense is that this work will not decide anything but only clear the ground for a broader appreciation of the medieval tradition which was informing reformed scholastic development.
 
I've only skimmed it to get a sense of the middle ground he is taking between Vos and Helm. My aim was to go back later and track the arguments but regrettably other things have intervened. One point that caught my attention was the different source material for discussing specific questions. I can say at this stage that I'm not so sure about some of my earlier findings on synchronic contingency. Perhaps it is enough to agree with Muller that it is a multivalent problem (I forget the exact words he uses). It could be that various theologians are looking at it on different levels and so there is a degree of talking past each other. My sense is that this work will not decide anything but only clear the ground for a broader appreciation of the medieval tradition which was informing reformed scholastic development.
That's fascinating. I mean I don't personally agree with Helm, though I have not studied him outside his book on the providence of God. I'm interested in Vos though, is this in his "Reformed Dogmatics" because I have that?
 
That's fascinating. I mean I don't personally agree with Helm, though I have not studied him outside his book on the providence of God. I'm interested in Vos though, is this in his "Reformed Dogmatics" because I have that?

This is Antonie Vos, not Geerhardus. Antonie has done a lot of work on John Duns Scotus and contingency. It is interesting material as it shows how Scotism affects Reformed scholastic theology. Muller is challenging some of the assumptions and showing some shared connections with Thomism.
 
This is Antonie Vos, not Geerhardus. Antonie has done a lot of work on John Duns Scotus and contingency. It is interesting material as it shows how Scotism affects Reformed scholastic theology. Muller is challenging some of the assumptions and showing some shared connections with Thomism.
Oh. Makes sense. I couldn't find what I thought you were talking about. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top