David's Census

[RBerman]

Correct. And if they choose to waffle on that point by pretending that God's will and man's freedom are the same thing, it basically turns their Perseverence point into full-fledged works soteriology.

I do not understand this comment. Who is it that thinks that God's will and man's freedom are the same thing?

[Chappie]

A bit of an overstatement, given that once Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God, he presumably was not particularly free to obey

What do you mean by that. As related to the hardening, all that he did was obey... Did he challenge God and allow the people to go before the illustration of God's power was complete... He was not free to do otherwise, all that God allowed him to do was obey...

Correct. And if they choose to waffle on that point by pretending that God's will and man's freedom are the same thing, it basically turns their Perseverence point into full-fledged works soteriology.

Absolutely...

[lee_merrill]

Actually, what we see with Pharaoh is the following progression...

I would argue that the trend we see here is that Pharaoh hardens his own heart initially, and that God hardens his heart later on (and possibly that of the officials) as a punishment for Pharaoh's freely-chosen, prior hardening.

I think this only works though if we say (per Open Theists) that God does not know the future. If, knowing that Pharaoh will harden his heart (freely or not) if X happens, God does X, then he can reasonably be said to cause the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

... the sin has to occur first before they can be given over to it, as with Pharaoh.

Um...

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Rom 11:32 NIV)

This would I believe include Adam, and his first disobedience.

"Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." (Rom 7:9 NIV)

So then there is the giving of the law, then there is sin that springs to life, and the resultant penalty.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And what freedom would that be. Being that according to R.T., we are all slaves to the power and sovereignty of God. He controls everything, dictates everything, and causes everything.

Well, God can be in complete control, if the only freedom is within his will. But then he is not the one to dictate everything, nor to be the sole cause.

From the cradle to the grave, saint and sinner alike, men are free to disobey God/Christ. This truth is effectively evidenced by the fact that from the cradle to the grave men do disobey.

If however, all they do is sin, I'm not so willing to call this being free.

"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NIV)

Problem is reformed thelolgy has God himself in the shadows causing {Everything} men to disobey.

But this is plain in the cross, as it seems we agree. God brought about this sinful deed, though as you say, this cannot be called God murdering his Son.

John 10:14-15:
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And this laying down of his life involved great sin, yet it was ordained by God.

Grace and peace,
Lee

[Chappie]

Well, God can be in complete control, if the only freedom is within his will. But then he is not the one to dictate everything, nor to be the sole cause.

God is in complete control in that there is nothing that he is not able to control if and when he chooses to do so...

If however, all they do is sin, I'm not so willing to call this being free.

The suggestion that all that men can do is sin is pure hyperbole; it is a sophistic conclusion by sophistic men. When a non-Christian loves and honors their parent, it is a good thing. God call this obedience to the law written in their hearts at creation.

"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NIV)

Is this the absolute depravity that reformers call total depravity?

But this is plain in the cross, as it seems we agree. God brought about this sinful deed, though as you say, this cannot be called God murdering his Son.

If God brought it about, it does not represent sin on God's part. God took advantage of the fact that all men are inherently evil/sinful...

And this laying down of his life involved great sin, yet it was ordained by God.

Grace and peace,
Lee

The sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sin God did ordain, but it is not good judgment to suggest that God ordained the sin involved.

[Obsidian]

I think this only works though if we say (per Open Theists) that God does not know the future. If, knowing that Pharaoh will harden his heart (freely or not) if X happens, God does X, then he can reasonably be said to cause the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

No, it doesn't only work for Open Theists. Open Theists could utilize my interpretation, certainly, but my interpretation doesn't only work for them.

Your interpretation seems to be saying that God hardened Pharaoh's heart merely by sending Moses, while knowing that Pharaoh would harden his own heart once confronted by Moses. It's an interesting theory, but I find that mine more elegantly corresponds to the text. Your theory certainly doesn't seem any more Calvinist-friendly than mine does, I should add.

I just think it's interesting how Exodus specifically mentions Pharaoh hardening his own heart at times and at other times specifically mentions God hardening his heart, and that the pattern of these references just happens to line up almost perfectly with fairly standard Arminian doctrine.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Rom 11:32 NIV)

This would I believe include Adam, and his first disobedience.

I think it's a stretch to take that verse so literally that you use it to imply that God caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. Paul says in Romans 5 that all men died as a result of Adam's sin. And so this binding over to disobedience is probably referring to the corrupted human nature which resulted from Adam's free sin. Adam did not originally suffer from Total Depravity or any other kind of depravity.

And this laying down of his life involved great sin, yet it was ordained by God.

I don't think there's anyone here who seriously argue against the notion that God uses human sins for his own glory. The question is to what extent God actively causes those sins.

What do you mean by that. As related to the hardening, all that he did was obey...

Huh? All he did was disobey Moses.

I do not understand this comment. Who is it that thinks that God's will and man's freedom are the same thing?

Well you were the one saying the answer was "both." And you didn't even offer a convenient Molinist-type explanation for how Pharaoh's actions can be both his own and God's, like Lee Merrill did.

[RBerman]

Who is it that thinks that God's will and man's freedom are the same thing?

Well you were the one saying the answer was "both." And you didn't even offer a convenient Molinist-type explanation for how Pharaoh's actions can be both his own and God's, like Lee Merrill did.

I didn't say that God's will and man's freedom were "the same thing," though. I said that both explanations are true. God often works through secondary means. It's like saying, "Was the soldier killed by the gun, or the bullet, or the enemy? All three are true." That doesn't mean that the gun, the bullet, and the enemy are the same thing. It means that each had a step in the causal chain which killed the soldier.

[Chappie]

I didn't say that God's will and man's freedom were "the same thing," though. I said that both explanations are true. God often works through secondary means. It's like saying, "Was the soldier killed by the gun, or the bullet, or the enemy? All three are true." That doesn't mean that the gun, the bullet, and the enemy are the same thing. It means that each had a step in the causal chain which killed the soldier.

The gun, the bullet are both inanimate objects incapable if intending the soldiers actions. Reality teaches is that the gun is not guilty, the bullet is not guilty; guilty is the one capable of initiating and causing the soldiers death. If this were a murder, we would not put the gun or the bullet on trial, but the one pulling the trigger wile intending the death. This same reality is how God using secondary means to put in motions actions that result in an eventual consequence. When you suggest that God uses his power to cause an action; that he is not the accountable cause of said action is fallacy. It is an illogical attempt to curtail a consequence by denying the tenets of accountability that God himself established and introduced into reality.

The enemy that intended and carried out the death of the soldier is one that killed him. He is the only one with a purpose that requires the soldier’s death. Neither the gun nor the bullet acted monergistically to cause the soldiers death. And if a consequence of justice is required, neither the gun nor the bullet will be indicted for the killing. In God's hands, when god determines to act through secondary means, men are helpless: Unable to volitionally do anything except follow the course that God has set in motion.

If God used a gun and a bullet as secondary means to cause a killing, logic and reality would demand that the action be attributed to God. Reason demands it, justice demands it. Who would sensibly put the gun and the bullet on trial, convict them and sentence them to death by lethal injection. Yet this is precisely what you say God does. The gun and the bullet are both guilty of being the means through which God caused an action to occur, and must be punished...

What gives Reformed Theology the right to exempt itself from the logic and reason that is the cohesive fabric that knits our reality together.

[Chappie]

Originally posted by Chappie
What do you mean by that. As related to the hardening, all that he did was obey...

Response Mr. "O"
Huh? All he did was disobey Moses.

Moses, God: God, Moses. God told moses "he will not let the people Go until: Did he disobey God... Or did he do precisely what God directed him to do.

[Obsidian]

I didn't say that God's will and man's freedom were "the same thing," though. I said that both explanations are true. God often works through secondary means. It's like saying, "Was the soldier killed by the gun, or the bullet, or the enemy? All three are true."

Then you're basically proving my second point. God picks people that he knows will freely choose to do enough good works that would constitute "Perseverance." Sounds pretty worksy to me.

[lee_merrill]

God is in complete control in that there is nothing that he is not able to control if and when he chooses to do so...

But I meant there can be free will, and God in complete control, if free choices can only be made within the will of God.

The suggestion that all that men can do is sin is pure hyperbole; it is a sophistic conclusion by sophistic men. When a non-Christian loves and honors their parent, it is a good thing. God call this obedience to the law written in their hearts at creation.

But our conscience approving us does not mean we are therefore innocent. And "whatever does not come from faith is sin", this means unbelievers can only sin.

"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NIV)

Is this the absolute depravity that reformers call total depravity?

Doesn't sound like there's much to commend here. Yes, this is total depravity.

If God brought it about, it does not represent sin on God's part. God took advantage of the fact that all men are inherently evil/sinful...

Yes.

The sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sin God did ordain, but it is not good judgment to suggest that God ordained the sin involved.

Well, I'm not sure what "they did what your power and will decided" (Acts 4:28 NIV) can mean, then.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Your interpretation seems to be saying that God hardened Pharaoh's heart merely by sending Moses, while knowing that Pharaoh would harden his own heart once confronted by Moses. It's an interesting theory, but I find that mine more elegantly corresponds to the text.

Well, how is it that God did not cause X, knowing if he did A, X would result? That is my question.

When you roll a rock down a hill, you cause all the consequences of the movement of that rock, whether you know of them or not. How much more so when you know all the consequences?

I And so this binding over to disobedience is probably referring to the corrupted human nature which resulted from Adam's free sin.

So no action is required on God's part? But God is active here, binding all men over to disobedience. And I will need a good argument for you to convince me that Adam is not included in "all men".

I don't think there's anyone here who seriously argue against the notion that God uses human sins for his own glory. The question is to what extent God actively causes those sins.

There are many clear instances, RBerman mentioned some, there are more.

John Piper

Gen. 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God."

© source where applicable

Blessings,
Lee

[Chappie]

But I meant there can be free will, and God in complete control, if free choices can only be made within the will of God.

Not sure that I understand you Lee: The best way that I can think of to say this is to say: God has complete authority, and the power to insert his will whenever, and where he chooses. When and where is a decision that God makes depending on the circumstances. Determinism, compatabalism are not in harmony with a preponderance of scripture.

But our conscience approving us does not mean we are therefore innocent. And "whatever does not come from faith is sin", this means unbelievers can only sin.

I would not take that passage too literally. Do you know any un-believers; apply what you know of them to the reality that you want to impose into this passage. Just as God declared all men under sin because of Adam, he here declares all that is not of faith sin. It is not the sin that condemns them; it's God's declaration... There is a certain amount of hyperbole in the passage added for significance...

Doesn't sound like there's much to commend here. Yes, this is total depravity.

Well, even those that coined the phrase admit that it needs a quantifier for clarity...

Well, I'm not sure what "they did what your power and will decided" (Acts 4:28 NIV) can mean, then.

Well, it could mean that God ordained the death of the incarnate Christ as necessary for the remission of sin. It could mean that God ordained the sacrifice without necessarily ordaining the sin and evil associated with it... Were not those actively responsible for the events of the day not volitionally guilty of anything? Was it all God?

Blessings,
Chappie

[RBerman]

Then you're basically proving my second point. God picks people that he knows will freely choose to do enough good works that would constitute "Perseverance." Sounds pretty worksy to me.

You appear to be placing good works logically priority to God's "choice" of people based on their good works. I have never espoused such a system. Rather, God chooses us to be his, regenerating our hearts into ones that can and do love and obey him, resulting, among other things, in good works. We freely choose because God sovereignly chose. We love Him because He first loved us.

[Obsidian]

Rather, God chooses us to be his, regenerating our hearts into ones that can and do love and obey him, resulting, among other things, in good works.

Except that now you're trying to have it both ways. That's not at all the system you espoused with Pharaoh. With Pharaoh, you stated that God didn't change his heart or in any way reverse-sanctify him. Rather, you stated that God merely set up a scenario where he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart. With Christians, you're taking the opposite position and saying that God actually changes their hearts directly. Most people would describe your view of how God treats Christians as basically a lack of true free will, and most people would describe your view of how God treated Pharaoh as ordinary, run-of-the-mill free will. That's how different the two concepts are.

Of course, you could theoretically hold two different concepts. You could hold that God acted differently with Christians than with Pharaoh -- except that Calvinists use Pharaoh as one of their main proof-texts for how God deals with Christians!

But I meant there can be free will, and God in complete control, if free choices can only be made within the will of God.

You're arguing that God sets up situations to maximize his good based on what he foreknows humans will freely choose to do. But that's basically Molinism, not Calvinism. For example, RBerman just got done saying that God directly changes our hearts to make sure Christians persevere. Even though RBerman has amened your post, your two ideas are incompatible. (And to the extent that he agrees with both, his own ideas are incompatible with each other.)

Well, how is it that God did not cause X, knowing if he did A, X would result? That is my question.

My question is how does this line up with the Calvinism that you purportedly believe in?

Additionally, I would ask: If we assume that your interpretation of the Pharaoh scenario is accurate, then isn't the situation completely distinct from the topic of this thread? In the David's census scenario, we see that Satan actively intervenes to get David to sin. But with Pharaoh, you're arguing that there is no direct intervention at all.

Under my interpretation, God does intervene directly in both cases (if using Satan counts as being direct), but only as a judgment on freely chosen actions that have already occurred.