Who Decided to Make Rey Sin?

[Rey Reynoso]

Some folk define Sovereignty of God very strictly and others view it more openly. This is what I wonder in two parts:

If God is in complete direct and active control of all things does that mean He has decreed for me to sin after I was saved?

Would that mean my sinning now is not my fault but God's?

(mind you this is for discussions sake to flesh out some thoughts on God's sovereignty. I maintain my sovereign right to close this thread if it becomes a flame war: unless the sovereigns over me moderate me, overturn my decision and reopen it).

[Rey Reynoso]

But is this how we exist; are we just like Macbeth only on a larger stage? if we are was the Macbeth right with the famous Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow speech? or are we responsible for writing our own portion of the play?

Well I'm not sure we can say both when Macbeth is an actor with an assigned role. Deterministically speaking, Macbeth is merely an extension of Shakespeare's will to push the story forward and when it came right down to it Macbeth was going to kill no matter what. I don't think we've seen a case with the level of brainwashing I'm proposing in my illustration, the closest probably being terrorists but even in those cases the greater onus belongs to the person in charge of it all: the rest are stupidly manipulated pawns.

[Jennifer]

Well I'm not sure we can say both when Macbeth is an actor with an assigned role. Deterministically speaking, Macbeth is merely an extension of Shakespeare's will to push the story forward and when it came right down to it Macbeth was going to kill no matter what.

so are you saying that; really the one who is in control, is the only one who is responsible?

[Carl Gobelman]

If God is in complete direct and active control of all things does that mean He has decreed for me to sin after I was saved?

There's this thing called "providence." It's (according to the Bible) the preferred way for God to interact with his creation. Providence is God's "invisible hand" that directs the free will choices of human beings, natural laws, secondary causes and all possible contingencies to work his sovereign (i.e., unknown to us) will. The books of Ruth and Esther are perfect cases of God's providential control of human events.

Obviously God is not limited to providence. He can, and does, act directly and openly, again as recorded in the Bible (e.g., the Flood, the Exodus, the Cross, etc.). But let's face it...miracles (true miracles that circumvent the laws of nature) are RARE.

So to answer the question: Does God "decree" for me to sin? No, not in the sense that he has officially decreed that on July 1, 2008 I would take the Lord's name in vain and entertain a lustful thought, etc. God doesn't "make" me sin (see below). His sovereignty is such that he knows I will sin (not in general as I know I will sin), he allows me to sin (he could sovereignly override my action if he so chose), and my sin in NO WAY alters his sovereign plan.

Would that mean my sinning now is not my fault but God's?

No. Does anybody read James 1:13? "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone."

We can't rationalize our sin by saying "God is sovereign and he made me do it." This is the same thought Paul speaks about in Romans 9:19-21... "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

Bottom Line: We are responsible for our sin.

CFG

[Rey Reynoso]

so are you saying that; really the one who is in control, is the only one who is responsible?

Oh I'm the one asking. What my illustrations are saying, as well as this deterministic model is saying, that if the person is in direct and active control then yes, the person is very much responsible. I think Mike made a good point of pointing out how sovereign control can still remain sovereign control without being direct and active.

[Carl Gobelman]

To Robert:

People often confuse the concept of God's will. God has a sovereign will, which is unknown to everyone. Sometimes, as noted in Scripture, God reveals a portion of his divine will, but for the most part WE DON'T KNOW God's sovereign will. Dt. 29:29 says the "secret things belong to God."

There is also the revealed will of God as recorded in the Bible (the "prescriptive" parts like the Ten Commandments). This is where God commands me to be holy and not sin. This is revealed because God has made it clear to us.

So when I sin (pick a sin), is it God's will that I sin? Yes and No. Yes, in the sense that NOTHING is outside of God's sovereign will (else God is not sovereign). No, in the sense that God commands me not to sin.

With that said, the way the original question was worded seems to lean in the direction of a hard determinism. If God decrees that I sin (in a hard determinism sense) then he is contradicting his revealed will to me (i.e., not to sin). God cannot command me to not sin and then decree that I sin. This is a mockery of God. Whatever God's sovereignty means, it cannot lead to this contradictory conclusion where God is decreeing the very thing he commands me not to do.

Hence my discussion on providence. God, it appears from Scripture and experience, has, in his sovereign control, delegated (for lack of a better word) a certain amount of control and freedom to his creation. We have wills and we choose actions based on where our wills lead. This control and freedom we have all operates under the umbrella of God's sovereignty. This is what was meant behind Joseph's statement in Genesis 50:20 ("You meant it for evil, but God meant is for good"). God's sovereign hand was behind everything that happened in Joseph's life. He didn't "make" his brothers sell him into slavery; they chose that on their own. God overrode the evil intent of their decision and brought about a good result. That, to me, is the Bibical definition of God's severeignty. There was never a moment where God was not in control.

Now this I have a problem with. To say that it was 'Gods Plan' is, as I understand, that God IS in fact in control. Should God 'know' that I will sin then say that He allows me to 'sin' seems to give me the distinct impression that God did in fact cause my sin, and therefore by your statement, I was relived of the Responsibility of that 'sin'.

Knowledge does not imply causation. We have to allow for a certain amount of mystery in this area. We are not ever going to be able to fully comprehend this. There are two poles in tension: God's sovereignty and our responsibility. I don't know how they reconcile, but I do know this...the Bible affirms both poles. Any doctrine to falls to one extreme or the other is not Biblical.

Again, James 1:13...God does not tempt, nor does he cause me to sin. I am responsible because my sinful desires overcome my desire to obey God. God knows this and allows this because, in his sovereignty, he is working out a greater end.

[Jennifer]

Carl: "Providence is God's "invisible hand" that directs the free will choices of human beings, natural laws, secondary causes and all possible contingencies to work his sovereign (i.e., unknown to us) will.
Does God "decree" for me to sin? No, not in the sense that he has officially decreed that on July 1, 2008 I would take the Lord's name in vain and entertain a lustful thought, etc. God doesn't "make" me sin (see below)."

These statements seem to contradict. I maybe misunderstanding you but
if God's invisible hand directs the free will choices of human beings, would that not include their choice to sin?
If God is directing my choices, then they are not really my choices. They only have the appearance of choice; that is, I am merely saying my lines as written and actually have no control over what I say.

I don't think this is acurate, I think for us to be responsible for our choices; free will (libertarian type) must be true.

[Jennifer]

Robert,
what is your answer?

[Carl Gobelman]

Jennifer:

These statements seem to contradict. I maybe misunderstanding you but
if God's invisible hand directs the free will choices of human beings, would that not include their choice to sin?
If God is directing my choices, then they are not really my choices. They only have the appearance of choice; that is, I am merely saying my lines as written and actually have no control over what I say.

I don't think this is acurate, I think for us to be responsible for our choices; free will (libertarian type) must be true.

I'll give you a Biblical example...Read Acts 16:6-10...

"Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them"

This is what I mean by the "invisible hand." What was God's will? For Paul to go to Macedonia and preach the gospel. How did he get Paul to Macedonia? He led him there, but not by direct command. Could God have divinely commanded Paul to go to Macedonia? Of course! He chose not to. Instead we see Paul choosing a course of action that led him to Macedonia. Paul's choices, albeit directed by the Holy Spirit, were freely made and not coerced. But because of obstacles along the way, Paul ended up in Macedonia, which is where God wanted him all along.

A loose analogy is like a chess game, a novice vs. a grand master. The grand master can "direct" the novice to make the moves that will give him the victory. The novice makes free choices (i.e., uncoerced), but in no way is the grandmaster going to lose the game.

Maybe you're right that our free choices only have the appearance of choice, but I think that's a limited view of free will. The Libertarian view suggests the only freedom is that which is outside God's sovereignty. In other words, God can't have any idea what I'm going to choose or else is thwarts human freedom. The problem with that is you have God reacting to our choices, which I don't think can be supported by Scripture.

To me freedom implies that I am uncoerced when making my choices. I am still influenced by my sin nature, my desires, my limitations and God's sovereignty.

[Michael JW]

It is true that God himself never sins. However, that does not mean he cannot determine for sin to occur. Consider a case study from 1 King 22:

Here's the set up: King Ahab wanted to go to war with Ramoth Gilead. King Jehoshaphat is friends with Ahab, and so agrees to help him out. However, Jehoshaphat, being more godly than Ahab, thinks it would be a good idea to seek a word from the Lord before heading off into battle. Four hundred prophets all said the same thing: Attack! You will succeed. But Jehoshaphat isn't satisfied, and asks Ahab if there is another prophet they can hear from. Ahab says there is one: Micaiah, son of Imlah. A messenger is sent to fetch Micaiah and tells him that all of the other prophets are speaking success over this battle. Micaiah vows, however, to only "say what the Lord tells me to say." (1 Kings 22:14, NET)

What happens next is very interesting. Micaiah speaks success over the battle! Ahab, not being satisfied with this, knowing Micaiah always speaks trouble over him, commands him to tell the truth. Here is how Micaiah answered:

"'That being the case, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the heavenly assembly standing on his right and on his left. The Lord said, ‘Who will deceive Ahab, so he will attack Ramoth Gilead and die there?’ One said this and another that. Then a spirit stepped forward and stood before the Lord. He said, ‘I will deceive him.’ The Lord asked him, ‘How?’ He replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The Lord said, ‘Deceive and overpower him. Go out and do as you have proposed.’ So now, look, the Lord has placed a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; but the Lord has decreed disaster for you.'" (1 King 22:19-23; NET)

The text is very explicit: the Lord desired to deceive (lie to) Ahab, as judgment against him. He then approved of, and commanded, a plan to send a lying spirit (an angel or a demon - the text does not say) to inhabit the prophets so they would lie to Ahab. Micaiah himself lied to Ahab on command from the Lord! Now, we may try to soften this text with different explanations, but I believe this texts shows us explicitly that although God is never blamed for sin, he is well within his sovereign ability to determine sin to occur.

What is interesting is that Ahab did not believe Micaiah's testimony, and decided to go into battle. Ahab did all he could to reduce his risk of death, yet the text goes on to say, "Now an archer shot an arrow at random, and it struck the king of Israel between the plates of his armor...So the king died and was taken to Samaria, where they buried him." (1 Kings 22:34, 37; NET) A "random" arrow killed Ahab. Right...it was the sovereign plan of God that killed Ahab, even though from our perspective, it was a completely random arrow. God determines all things, AND we are responsible for all the choices we make, and we will be held accountable for them on the day of judgment.

[Rey Reynoso]

Well that's a problem, ay? I mean Micaiah was supposed to lie instead gave it a shot, gave up and told the truth?

[Michael JW]

Micaiah did do what he was supposed to do. This is conjecture on my part, but I can almost imagine Micaiah saying something like, "Oh yeah, you wanna know the truth? I'll tell you the truth...." That fact remains - outside my conjecture - that Micaiah spoke nothing but the word of the Lord. Look at the first part of verse 19: "That being the case, hear the word of the Lord." He spoke the word of the Lord. If what he said didn't come true, then he was a false prophet. But what he said did come true, and so was vindicated (at least in the eyes of the Lord - we don't hear from Micaiah, son of Imlah again after this chapter).

[Jennifer]

Maybe you're right that our free choices only have the appearance of choice, but I think that's a limited view of free will.
I do not personally support this view but it seems to be where a lot of people in the protestant community stand.


The Libertarian view suggests the only freedom is that which is outside God's sovereignty. In other words, God can't have any idea what I'm going to choose or else is thwarts human freedom.
two things
1. what you have described is Open Theism, and that is a pretty new thing which I also do not hold.
2. Libertarian freedom can be reconciled without giving up God's sovereignty.

The problem with that is you have God reacting to our choices, which I don't think can be supported by Scripture.
I beg to differ, just look at the flood I say God reacted very strongly against the sin of the world, and again look at the Cross; this is God making his Checkmate move if you will. ;-)

BTW:
I like the chess player analogy but even when a grandmaster is playing a novice, the grandmaster must move in response to the novice, but no one would ever say that the grandmaster is not controlling the game.

so to bring it back to the OP, I say that Rey Decided to Make Rey Sin? but God makes his grandmaster move to insure that his will, will be accomplished. That is eventhough the sin was done against his will, he will bring his will out of it.
what we need to do is to bring our will in line with his, so that our moves are his moves.