Piper on Predetermined sin

Has anyone read or heard this question and answer session of Piper's. I am struggling with this same question right now and questions similar to it.

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2370_has_god_predetermined_everything_even_sin/

(Sorry, I couldn't get the url link thing to work)

Questions similar to this are driving me crazy right now. I can see why J. Piper said that it can drive some people mad :)

One of my questions after listening to this Q&A session is:
Lets say someone is a christian and is tempted to commit adultery. if they believed what Piper teaches here- wouldn't they be thinking 'well, should i fight this temptation with everything in me or has God already predetermined that I am going to fall"?

I mean if God already predetermined everything including all suffering and sin- it can leave you feeling hopeless- like we are just puppets.

I know many people try to explain that God predetermines everything but that we also have a free will to make choices. But I don't know how it can be both. How can God hold us responsible for sin that he already predetermined?

If anyone is going to reply,please try to answer in a simple manner. I don't really want to wade through a long theology article. and please read or view the video first as well so you know where i am getting this information :)

In Him...

Your presupposition is true as long as you believe what Piper is saying is true. If it is true, then that truth makes prayer redundant, doesn't it? If "everything" is predestined, why ask God to heal a loved one, lead you to the vocation where He wants you to serve Him, and so on? Oh, I can hear it already, "that's already been 'predestined', we just think God's doing what we are asking when we pray, but we're too limited in our understanding to know that we are predestines for these things already."

This I understand, by the Holy Spirit, that Free Will is only Free until we give it away to God. When that choice is made, then, and only then, are we more "like puppets" because it is totally, "Not my will, but they will be done".

Unfortunately, it is my opinion, there may not be more than a few on this earth who are so are so unselfish to completely "die to self" as to allow God full control of our will. As much as I desire it, I see many things each day that tell me that I'm not even close to "doing the things I do not want to do".

If you are predestines to have these types of things drive you crazy, then there's nothing you can do about it. For me, is too short of a drive and I'd rather be predestined to bask in His lovingkindness, ponder His ways in my life, and ask Him to make me be who He wants me to be in every aspect of who I am.

M.B. Mathews

GOD gives to man reason and will and the
ability to choose.
But man is by nature selfish and places
his desires, interests, needs above GOD'S
purpose and will for him.
Sin is a principle within our natures.
When man willfully chooses not to follow
and serve GOD

Even if this doctrine were true, which I don't believe that it is, I see very little practical application for it. At best, it gives you an "aha" moment with some goosebumps, and an excuse to live a sub-par life. It makes you say, even as a Christian, that the reason you cannot overcome your habitual sins is because God has determined you need to keep them for some unspecified time and reason. Nevermind such stands in stark contrast to Romans 8, which says God predestined us to be conformed to the image of Christ. it does not say he predestined us to live our lives below where Christ would actually have us to live.

*edit*

Granted, Piper would say all this doctrine does is lead to glorifying God. But really... does it do that simply because he says it does? I believe God gets more glory out of your life when you don't sin, and walk in obedience to Him. Seems God would therefor be robbing Himself of glory, all in the name of some convoluted doctrine that says He gets glory best this way.

Keith Daniel discusses this in his audio sermon here @ SI titled, "The Tightrope Walker"; sorry I couldn't hyper-link the sermon here on my cell. You may recall the Apostle Paul saying in his letter to the Romans, "...Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means!" & in another place, "Do not give the devil a foothold." God is sovereign; however, man still has a choices to make. We as professors must strive to enter into the kingdom of God. God imparts His grace to the humble that ask Him.

Without getting into the specifics of this hairy debate, which has been debated to death, I will say that Piper would emphasize the flip side as well, that God has pre-ordained you not to sin as well. So when the situation comes up do you do this sin or not, focus not on "well if I do it, God ordained me too." Rather say "well God doesn't tempt me beyond what I can bear and moreso He has ordained a way out of this situation so I don't have to sin."

Was thinking some more about this thread and realized to understand Piper's motivation, you have to understand Piper full-spectrum on God's sovereignty. He is actually a professing 7 point Calvinist, but in no way a hyper-Calvinist. He fully asserts the responsibility of man. Through a phrase he uses, "being more biblical than theological," he keeps the tension that we do have to do something even though at the end of the day God has planned it all. I could post a link or 2 later where he explains this more if anyone is interested.

Back to the topic, he comes to this conclusion of God planning all things by scripture (could list some if you're interested, but you probably know them) and by looking at a topic like suffering. If something tragic happens to a family, a car accident killing a child, he is telling them that God is the one behind it. Why? Because otherwise what, he tells them God didn't mean for this to happen and He's just as upset about it as they are? He says if that's the case then he'll give up Christianity because a god like that isn't worth serving. He says rather that God is behind it and somehow, pulling on that Romans 8:28-30 text, this is working out for their good and conformity to Christ.

Also he arrives at this conclusion because of his view of cross centrality to life, another example that combines both suffering and sin. He views the cross as the most "spectacular" sin ever committed: the betrayal, slander, abuse, and violent murder of the Son of God. It's an interesting way to view the cross. Before I heard him described it that way, I never really looked at the cross as the people sinning, though clearly they did. Anyhoo, based off his view of sovereignty and supporting verses that make Christ's death look fore-ordained from before the foundation of the earth, he would assert that God wholly planned this heinous sin, and from that sin, His glory was certainly displayed. And so working from the cross outward, as far as a mind can handle it, he believes the same about other sins. As a side note, to the one who would abuse such a teaching and use it as license to sin, Piper would surely view them as unregenerate and the glory God will get from their sinning will be the wrath displayed on judgment day to which they are storing up.

Giggles, I can totally see Piper's view here. I can see the biblical basis, etc... but what i can't still fathom is that, let's say a terrible act is committed like severe child abuse or rape. According to this doctrine- then God ordained that to happen to that child. Of course, Piper or a Calvinist would explain that the abuser or rapist is still held responsible for their sin- even though God ordained it ??

Then down the road- how can you tell that child- God ordained for you to be abused/raped (so you can learn a good lesson through all this?) It's seems so cruel.

This brings up so many questions like this to me. I myself thought I was leaning toward being Reformed- until these questions starting popping up in my mind. I have had alot of suffering in my own life and have had to learn to make choices- to not have self pity, to choose to have joy and be happy anyway despite suffering. Now more than ever I see that we might have more free will than i thought.

I am confused and i can't accept right now that God is sovereign, so sovereign that he ordains heinous crimes and abuse and rape and murder (supposedly for the good of others and his glory) - ANd on top of that He isn't responsible for the crime but a human being is held responsble for the crime/sin. I can't wrap my mind around that.

Also can't wrap my mind around- if God predestined some people to go to heaven and others to go to hell- why would He allow the people who are predestined to go to Hell- why would he allow them to be born knowing they would spend eternity in Hell. They didn't choose to be born. They didn't get a chance. I don't see how as a Calvinist you can say they have a choice- yet are predestined for Hell already.

I wasn't asking only about sin or people using an excuse to sin :)

Thanks all for your responses so far.

In Him......

When I am at our reformed church and always hear someone say 'we deserve nothing but hell' but I know that they believe Calvinist/reformed doctrine. I struggle because i know they believe that God preordained the fall of man so that Jesus could come and save man from sin. I don't see how God can hold Adam and Eve responsible or man responsible for the fall and our sinful nature- when He already planned for it to all happen this way so he could send Jesus as savior.

Again, it seems as is man were just a pawn so that God can look good. I hate even saying this. I have been a follower of Christ for some time- but i have no peace right now about any of this.

I mean, when reformed people or calvinists then reply to these questions,they say, well God can do whatever He wants. I feel like asking why God created us in the first place- to glorify Him- I know- but if we are just pawns- it seems like a cruel game.

I know Jay Adams, a leading Biblical and reformed counselor and author, teaches christians to NOT tell their unsaved counselees that Jesus died for them- because that isn't the truth.

Still thinking :)

Then down the road- how can you tell that child- God ordained for you to be abused/raped (so you can learn a good lesson through all this?) It's seems so cruel.

_________________

Why would you tell the child that? I was abused when I was a very young at the hand of an older brother. I don't blame God for what happened, never have and I never will. I do believe my parents have accountability, especially my dad, for not giving his daughters proper covering while I was young and under his care. As an adult I am accountable for my choices, everyone goes through things in life, if one chooses to live for self those things will more then likely destroy you and eat you up, if you choose to live for Christ, there is such healing, peace and joy that is beyond what I can even express in words.

I think it just comes down to a matter of trusting and having faith in God. God is Holy, Just, and Sovereign, in all that He does. Look to the Cross, look what Jesus suffered and endured willingly for your and my sake, that is love beyond all comprehension! I have come to see that if I desire to know and love the Lord at some point I must trust and have faith that I am never going to have all the answers but knowing how much HE loves me is enough! This is just my heart on that matter, I will pray for you. I find that if I am always searching for "answers" i often miss out on precious time of just sitting at His feet and getting to know Jesus the person!

God Bless
mj

Edited to be hopefully more clear

MJ,

I would never tell a child that. But just recently was in our church service listening to a reformed pastor say to the congration (full of children as well) that all suffering including abuse and rape, etc.... is caused by God. He said that he knows people like to say 'allowed' because it seems nicer. but that it is really God 'causing'. I had to wonder how many children might wonder why God would cause them to be hurt or abused or whatever. That just really threw me off.

As a parent, it is hard not to think that God does not want harm to come to a child/person but that people have a free will to choose to sin or not. God is not going to make someone NOT sin becasue that would be taking their free- will away. Then we would be nothing but puppets. Anyway, that's what I always believed prior to hearing that all suffering and all sin is preordained by God.

In Him......

edit: MJ- I am sorry to hear about your abusive situation when you were little. That saddens me- but I am glad to see that you have trusted God with it and are at peace about it. God bless you :)

God does not see time as we do, how he accomplishes His plan for redemption and justice is more complex than anyone can imagine.

Even if man had a free will, God still created people whom He knows will never choose Him, try to imagine for a moment that there was never a time when God didn't know what was going to happen. It is impossible for God to "discover" somthing new, He did not reach a point in time where He formulated His plan for you, it has always been for eternity. Hard to imagine, but again this is wayy beyond how we think about time.
- Joe

Hi Chanin,

With reluctance I will weigh in on this subject. The confusion is caused by a great misunderstanding of God's purposes in redemption. Error begets more error. The trouble is that folk are so intrenched in their views that it is almost impossible to even talk about the topic. I have suffered more abuse on this one subject than any other.

No doctrine can be formulated that does not square with God's revelation of Himself. It does not glorify God to paint Him as the author of sin, etc. and then suggest that, "It's none of our business" because God is sovereign and does what He wishes. God is sovereign. But He has demonstrated His willingness to use that sovereignty to express His benevolence. God is love. God's love is the love that lays down His life for His enemies. If Jesus told us the dangers of offending a little one that believes in him (millstone, etc.) how would He then turn and ordain the behavior? It is blasphemous to suggest that God is the cause behind a sinner's sin. This is to switch God and Satan. What does the story of Job show us? It is Satan that seeks to undo the faith of the saints. Peter found the same also when he was to be sifted.

The concept of 'the will' is difficult to define biblically. God simply says, "Chose ye!" We have the capacity to make a choice. We can obey or disobey God. When God's word comes to us it contains the grace to carry it out. No word from God shall be void of power. So when God says, "Thou shalt not kill" He does not then turn around and ordain men to sin and then send them to hell for following His orders. That turns the entire word of God into nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the conversation between God, Eve, Adam and the serpent into nonsense. God ends up blaming the serpent for His own actions.

Let me say lovingly here that the problem is that men cannot resist seeking to understand these types of apparent philosophical paradoxes. It becomes a source of polarization for the people of God. It becomes a cause of sifting of faith also. I tell you the truth that if we as believers got up and preached a God that damns souls to hell unconditionally and saves others without any respect to a response to Him, etc., then the whole cross of Christ would become of no effect and the God of love as depicted in the scriptures would become the Father of Lies. So we are told to keep these secrets 'in-house' so as not to offend the world.

John Wesley once said that it would be better to say that the passages in question make no sense at all than to say they make a sense such as this (unconditional election etc.). We need to go back and look at the scriptures afresh. Does God really teach that He unconditionally damns sinners or causes sinners to sin, etc? God has consistently revealed Himself as a God of love. His call (command) to repentance is real. He does not command all men everywhere to repent with His mouth with a different conclusion in mind. He is not a double minded man. He treats us as if we are living in the moment with no view to the future. If we want to know about God we must look at Jesus Christ. He wept. He lamented when Jerusalem did not turn to Him. What double mindedness would a man have to have to will something on the one hand and lament the decision the next? It does not make sense and even the teachers of it know it. It does not square with God as He has revealed Himself in His Son. Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." He warned about hurting (offending) them. The doctrine does not square with your conscience. Don't give in to it. God is a benevolent God that has His eye on the sparrow. No doctrine can change that.

Well thought reply, I respect the sensitivity with which you responded,
Grace to you Robert,
Joe

I would never tell a child that. But just recently was in our church service listening to a reformed pastor say to the congration (full of children as well) that all suffering including abuse and rape, etc.... is caused by God. He said that he knows people like to say 'allowed' because it seems nicer. but that it is really God 'causing'. I had to wonder how many children might wonder why God would cause them to be hurt or abused or whatever. That just really threw me off.

I understand, I have personally never heard this kind of teaching before so I am not really sure I should comment to much further. I just know that in the Lord I have always found peace and love. I hope I did not offend you with my post in any way. I will pray for you to have understanding in what the Lord is seeking to show you through all of this though.

God bless
mj

Thank you MJ for your prayers :)

Robert, thank you for trying to explain things to me in lay terms :) I don't know why I am struggling and fighting with this right now. The church we had been going to that is reformed in theology- i just can't bring myself to go back. I keep fighting with myself if it's my own problem or what. Many sermons are wonderful and they do teach alot about changing and growing. But now I see all their words completely different. I can't listen to them teach about not being lukewarm, etc... and then try to infuse that with their other reformed teachings. It doesn't make sense. I know I am a very black and white person. That's probably part of my problem.

I am just praying that even if i can't find the answers that I am looking for, that at least I will find a sense of peace in what I believe and who God is. I know I've been through alot in these past few years which has really rocked my faith even more. I can't beleive that I once thought i knew exactly what I believed and thought i knew it all :)

Anyway, what I can't understand is my feelings of guilt for not going back to that church. I can't figure out if it's my own obsessive thinking/false guilt or if it's from the Lord. There are no other churches around that I can find that are even close to preaching truth with any conviction. This church has conviction- but it is decidedly Reformed.

Ahh, I just want some peace :)

Thanks again.
In Him......

I know I've been through alot in these past few years which has really rocked my faith even more. I can't beleive that I once thought i knew exactly what I believed and thought i knew it all :)

I have never seen a person hear the views you alluded to that it did not shock them or in some way sift their faith; so you are not alone. No one can imagine Jesus Christ, that is the image of the invisible God, (to have seen Him is to have seen the Father) stand up and lament the rejection of Him in Jerusalem like He did if He had actually foreordained their actions.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

Time for some common sense. Did Jesus Christ put on a show here? Was their guile found in His mouth? Was the poison of asps under his lips. Did Jesus Christ the Son of God in expression of the person of the Father here say, "Oh Jerusalem that did what I ordained of thee! Why did I predetermine to doom and damn thee, Oh Jerusalem! Why did I kill the prophets through thee, oh Jerusalem!"

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:42-48)

Is God a publican? What blasphemy! God's Love (agape) is our example of how we are to Love and if we have some sort of 'back-room theology' meant for the illuminated and spiritual then we can effectively just love in that back-room theological sense. To be like 'God' I can just go out an arbitrarily distribute my love and when questioned I can just tell the person, "It's none of your business!" I mean, if that's really how God is then we are commanded to love like God loves (to be like God). Let's all just go out and love like our back-room God loves? Is this what the Bible teaches?

If we are called to be 'perfect' even as the heavenly Father is perfect; that perfection means that we love indiscriminately. That is what the Bible reveals. Forget philosophy. If I am called to be conformed to the image of God then I need to act like Jesus Christ because He is the express image of His person. If that person is not what I have believed He is then I need to adjust my behavior to reflect these new revelations. Can that be true? Can I love arbitrarily and call myself a Christian? The canned answer? It's none of your business what God does! Sure it is! I need to know how to act and live in this world and the only revelation I have is in the Bible. Whatever God the theologians come up with I hope they are planned to imitate Him in His distribution of His love and grace. If God don't treat all with grace and love then to be consistent I should not either. But if God has commended His love towards us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly - then that must be my reference point. God is Love and how we understand that one truth is utterly important.

Robert,

thank you. this makes alot of sense to me. I will be thinking on this for awhile tonight :)

In Him....

It's not problem. I just became a bit concerned that the issue has brought confusion. I think we need to focus on God's Love. We need to know that God really loves us.

About trying to "wrap my head around" some concepts... are those Bible concepts, or are they those of men?

Some ideas of man, in general, may be so difficult to understand. I heard one theologian say God himself couldn't understand some theories - because they aren't true! (Like, can you understand why 2 + 2 is 498 ? No one can; it isn't true!)

About the idea of God predetermining everything: When Israel said God was taking them into the desert to kill them, God didn't like it. This is mentioned in Hebrews and also Numbers. Without re-quoting all the scriptures, to sum it up, God wanted Israel to believe in His goodness because of all they had seen (deliverance from Egypt, etc.). God REALLY didn't like it that they said God was going to kill them.

That is the problem with the idea that God kills people, innocent people, destroys His children, etc.

One thing Piper mentioned was in Proverbs 16 - verse 33. He referred to it as the most random thing possible. But it was a specific thing - like rolling dice. One elucidation of this verse is that it refers to the Urim and Thummin, which God is supposed to control. This does not imply it refers to ALL dice throws, etc.

We can have that God DOES cause SOME things to happen (like the result of consulting the Urim and Thummin), but not necessarily all.

What about Job? The Lord giveth, said Job, and the Lord taketh away. However, we ought to note that Job also - later - said that he didn't know what he was talking about! And, in Job, God said something about "words without knowledge". Also, it is clear in Job that God did NOT do those things to Job - the devil did. God merely allowed them.

The main thing I see is that, based on Numbers 14-15 and Hebrews, the thing to avoid is accusing God of trying to do bad things.

Jesus taught that God is good. He even said he, Jesus, was not good, but only the Father. Jesus also said the devil came to kill, steal and destroy, but that Jesus came to give life. It is important to note that Jesus made a distinct contrast.

So, I would be encouraged, and not believe that God is going to cause bad things. I really don't think the Bible teaches that, at all... regardless of the opinions of man. Jesus warned of taking the statements (traditions) of religious leaders over the word of god.

I have heard that allowing man any choice about anything, equated to God not absolutely determining everything, makes man more powerful than God. We aren't of this mind, however, when good people refrain from committing sins they are tempted to commit. This argument for God's predetermination of all things, is to my mind, rather ethnocentric - assuming that God, like us, has to PROVE his power or else He doesn't have it. It applies the values of fallen man to a Holy God.

How often do people not do things, even though they could? This is not weakness, at least in men, but quite often wisdom! Quite often, in fact, it is goodness - when a person COULD commit a crime to hurt another, and chooses to not do that thing.

First, let me reiterate - we are NOT mere pawns. In an earlier post I read that IF we are God's pawns, then life seems a cruel game. How true! (true IF we are but pawns... but we are not).

Study Numbers 14 and related chapters, like the book of Hebrews, and see that when God said "How long will it be until they believe in me?" that He was asking how long until they quit blaming me for all the bad things.

That is what they did - and you know, I felt sorry for them reading about it.

They wept, Numbers tells us.

But, if we are supposed to stomach the cruelty (which is not true) of God, then this might be much easier to stomach - that God was angry because they thought He would kill them! They said that God had the nature / inclination / desire / predetermination / choice / whatever - to KILL them. But God said, "They have not known My ways."

Is God angry with Christians today, who say the same things about him? Israel had a negative expectation about God (a belief that God was cruel), and THAT made God angry.

This ought to tell us something - that when we today say God destroys his people, then possibly we, like Israel of old, don't know His ways.

I am not trying to criticize any theologian, but to get across a positive point - that God is good! We are commanded to have faith by Jesus. How can we expect anything good from God, when we believe God is the source of all our problems?

I have prayed God open our eyes to see His love.

He cares! The story of the lost sheep tells us that.

I believe God has, and gives, answers to questions. Daniel said as much to the King Nebuchadnezzar.

I hope that perhaps I can help with a possible answer to the question of whether salvation is predetermined for some, and whether others are predetermined to be lost.

In brief, God does NOT pre-determine individuals to be lost.

God is long-suffering and NOT willing that ANY should perish, BUT THAT ALL SHOULD REPENT. Those last words imply that there is some requirement for man.

What if the PLAN is what is predetermined, and NOT the individual conformity to the plan?

Then everything makes sense - God did pre-determine the plan - that all who meet the conditions of salvation will be saved.

For example, it might be pre-determined that the team that wins enough football games (and the right ones) will go to the Super Bowl.

This is pre-determined, but... the specific team which goes to the Super Bowl is NOT pre-determined. That depends on which team wins certain games. There is a pre-determined PLAN, which also requires certain CONDITIONS to be met. The plan is pre-determined by some organization; the conditions are met by some team. BOTH have to do their part for the team to play in the Super Bowl, just as salvation depends on BOTH God and man.

(I know it's not a single team in the Super Bowl, but 2 teams that go to play - but that is irrelevant. Everything that applies to the one team also applies to the other.)

Parenthetically, while on the topic of God's conditions, let me put in here a word that His conditions are NOT difficult! (His yoke is easy, His burden is light, God's commandments are not grievous, the way of salvation is made so simple a fool would not err in it, ...)

This allows God to predetermine salvation, as a plan, BUT... also allows people the freedom of choice, and also ensures the justice of not forcing some people to miss out on salvation through no fault of their own.

This is not just a theory; this is consistent with the scriptures (God is not willing that any should perish - so, how could He cause them to perish?). Scriptures supposedly supporting pre-determination actually can be interpreted accurately and also consistently with the above view.

For example, I Th. 1:4 refers to the elect of God. Elect means chosen - God chooses. This does NOT require that the choice has no basis in what the individual chooses. For example, a US president may choose a cabinet member - but the choice depends on various factors (qualifications). The qualifications are handled by the individual being chosen, while the choice is handled by the one doing the choosing. Again, 2 entities are involved!

Biggs wrote

This I understand, by the Holy Spirit, that Free Will is only Free until we give it away to God. When that choice is made, then, and only then, are we more "like puppets" because it is totally, "Not my will, but they will be done".

As to predetermined sin; if the logical deductions from a doctrinal position, become uncomfortable and ridiculous, perhaps the starting position is flawed.

Kind regards

Mike

tag

moreofHim, I totally understand what you're saying here:

"I can see the biblical basis, etc... but what i can't still fathom is that, let's say a terrible act is committed like severe child abuse or rape. According to this doctrine- then God ordained that to happen to that child. Of course, Piper or a Calvinist would explain that the abuser or rapist is still held responsible for their sin- even though God ordained it ??

Then down the road- how can you tell that child- God ordained for you to be abused/raped (so you can learn a good lesson through all this?) It's seems so cruel."

I can think of one specific Bible story that directly addresses this issue: the one of Joseph and his brothers. They kidnap, confine, and sell him into slavery, and then cover their atrocity with lies and deception. You know the story. Come full circle to the end and Joespeh reconciles their wicked plan like this: "What you planned for evil, God meant for good."

As for the rest of your post, volumes and volumes have been written wrestling with those questions. I certainly won't presume to answer them in a mere post. I have come to believe that all things are of Him, to Him, and through Him, and all He does is good. So while it would be heinous to call evil good, it is good that evil exists or it simply would not.

God doesn't cause us to sin. See James 1:12,13,14,15,16.
God does not want us to sin. Romans 6:1-2,11-12,13-14,15-16,17-18.
I've heard it said that committing sins is our fault. It is not our fault that nature of sin is there, but it is our fault for it remaining there, since in Christ there is a remedy for sin.

"I can think of one specific Bible story that directly addresses this issue: the one of Joseph and his brothers. They kidnap, confine, and sell him into slavery, and then cover their atrocity with lies and deception. You know the story. Come full circle to the end and Joespeh reconciles their wicked plan like this: "What you planned for evil, God meant for good."
God can take a bad situation and turn it around for His glory. Did He cause it, No. But in spite of it, He turned it around.

Amen to all your cited verses. Proper reformed understanding of this position says that man is entirely responsible for his sins and will only ever go to hell because of them.

As for the Genesis passage, here's how it reads:

Genesis 50:20
But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

God didn't salvage something with Joseph; it was a sovereign plan designed to save not only Joseph's family (thus preserve the line of promise) but also save many heathen lives through that famine. Nations came to Egypt for food during those lean years, and they found it because God had planned.

"So why did He not step in and prevent it and all the suffering in the world? I have come to have peace about that. We cannot know some things but if we are obedient to Him and trust Him regardless, then He can make us whole and as if the damage done had never happened."

This KF, reads well for both sides of this discussion.

If this is seen as a "sovereign plan" because the verse says "God meant it for good", then look at other translations also.

Actually, the verse in question reads as below in other translations:

Gen. 50:20

(BBE) ..., but God has given a happy outcome, ...

(CEV) ..., but God made it turn out for the best, ...

(DRB) ...: but God turned it into good, ...

BBE = Bible in Basic English
CEV = Common English Version
DRB = Douay-Rheims Bible

None of these translations say that it was a sovereign plan.

And, if God wanted to deal with the famine, was this (the bad things that happened to Joseph) the only way God had available? Couldn't the God who turned water into wine, also turn rocks into food? Remember when Jesus fed the thousands? Was the suffering of Joseph necessary?

We see that it was not necessary for bad things to happen to Joseph for the feeding of people during a famine, and that this requirement is not logical.

What IS logical is that in spite of what already happened, God did something good.

The main point is the following:

is God the cause of bad things?

Israel at one time held this belief.

The Israelites believed God was cruel - a killer: see Num. 14:3

Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?" (ESV)

Please realize the similarity of this verse to the idea that God causes bad things to happen to His people. That is what this verse tells us the people believed about God: that God led them out of Egypt to kill them in the wilderness; i.e., that God was the cause of their problems.

What did God think of this belief - that God is the cause of their problems?

He didn't like it. God wanted them to believe that He would be good to them.

How long will they refuse to trust me in spite of all the miraculous signs I have done among them? Num 14:11

The signs were evidence of God's goodness. He delivered them from oppression, brought them through the Red Sea.

Does the report that God causes bad things, wills bad things, for Christians and innocent children, - does such a report, like the report of the verse below, cause people to question God's goodness and to turn against God?

The answer is obvious. The posts here on this issue prove these ideas DO cause questions.

(GNB) The men Moses had sent to explore the land brought back a false report which caused the people to complain against the LORD. And so the LORD struck them with a disease, and they died. Num. 14:36

How many people have heard such, that God causes everything bad, and decided (quite logically) that God was evil, and decided to have nothing to do with such a God?

IF they believed this then the logical, and the moral, thing to do would be to conclude that this supernatural being was evil, and to resist the evil, and to do good instead. IF God was this way, then God would be capricious, a respecter of persons, unjust, and in general, evil. They may think, it would be good to oppose such evil.

Sadly, the God these people may reject is NOT this evil one, but the "GOOD Lord".

How many innocent seekers for truth have been led to reject God, because of such attribution of evil to God?

What are we doing to promote the gospel when we teach God causes bad things?

The Bible tells us that no man has seen God at any time - BUT that Jesus has declared God to us. "See" means understand in this context.

So, Jesus showed us the true nature of God.

Jesus did NOT make people sick - He healed them.

THAT is the true nature of God.

- I am the GOOD shepherd (NOT the one that seeks out the one lost sheep, so I can torture it)

He said that whoever had seen Him (Jesus) had seen the Father.

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

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

These passages would sum up what Piper means.

I think it comes down to why did God allow evil to come into the world? I know that arminians and calvinist have argued about such things for centuries.I don't believe either one gives a complete answer. Both sides tend to cherry pick verses. It might take eternity to find some of these things out:) While I tend to lean reformed I believe that somehow both sides are true. Yeah I know thats hard to explain :), but hey the Glory of God in the Gospel of Christ is hard to explain. I mean it is so simple in one way and soo infinitely complex in another way. Now for sure it is truth we know and have to stand on; our solid rock. But it is infinite in its wonder and our little minds can't come close to comprehending all the wonders of God in Christ. God is righteous, morally perfect; we must never waver on that. However God is sovereign as well. Ariminians tend to say that God in His foreknowledge knew who would choose Him and who would not. I agree that He does foreknow however that doesnt explain it; because God is the one who has set everything in motion; albeit he does not sin. He created the ones who would choose Him or not. He doesnt only know the future but He is Lord over it. I don't know why God allowed Satan to fall or why He created a world that He knew would decend into depravity except that the riches of His grace might be made known through Christ. It's not because He was lonely but rather out of His abundance and pleasure did He create us. The Scriptures says that God tempts no man; its also says that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him. I know that He is righteous and hates sin, I know He is in control, I know He has made a way for us to be reconciled to Him. The Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world! I know I cant blame Him for my sin, God forbid, and that it is only by His grace that I came repentance and faith.
Somehow God is sovereign and yet man is responsible for his sin. Can't fully explain it; but I can't explain how God created everything from nothing either :)But its true! It just hit me that when Christ heard Lazarus was ill He stayed two more days where He was and Lazaruz died. Christ said that this was that He might be glorified by it! Then Christ demonstrated His compassion by weeping and His divinity by raising Lazarus from the dead!

Look at the verse again, KJV:

Joh 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

We recall that punctuation was added later (not in the original manuscripts) and not inspired; so, what if this could be something like below:

Joh 11:4
When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death.

But for the glory of God [Jesus also said] that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

In other words, the connection between the sickness and the glory may not be there. In other words, the meaning might be something like this:

Jesus said, "The sickness is not unto death. Also, God is going to be glorified by the healing."

It seems to me that the glory may not HAVE to be from the sickness, or the death - but could be from the healing! Especially, if we change the punctuation - which is not in the original inspired text anyway. (Punctuation was added later.)

This is a distinction that I think worth considering. This may be wrong - if so, someone let me know! But I do think it seems a possibility, at least until someone points out why not.

In looking over my last post, I see a single word at the end of the verse, that may seem to contradict the interpretation I gave.

The word is "thereby" - so God was going to be glorified "thereby". The question becomes, "by what?"

Although the obvious answer may seem to be, "by the sickness," there IS another possibility: "by the [fact that the] sickness is not unto death."

It does seem more glorifying to God

that a sickness is not unto death,

than

that there is a sickness.

Also, it seem more in line with the nature of God as a loving, good God. (See my previous few posts on the goodness of God.)

To draw together some ideas, we can say the following:

- God is good
- God is glorified by the works of God
- Satan is glorified by the works of Satan
- sickness (stealing, killing, destroying) are the works of Satan
- giving life, and that more abundantly, healing, etc. is the work of God
- bad things did happen at times
- bad things have been caused by man, accident, the devil, etc.
- bad things were not caused by God

A comment on the last point: even all the bad things that happened to Job, the classic example of bad things happening to a good person, were caused by Satan, not by God. The book of Job is quite clear on this. Job, however, did say that God had caused his problems - shot arrows at him, etc.

BUT, look at what God said to Job in Job 38:2

(CEV) Why do you talk so much when you know so little?

(GNB) Who are you to question my wisdom with your ignorant, empty words?

(GW) "Who is this that belittles my advice with words that do not show any knowledge about it?

God said, Job didn't know what he was talking about. So, when Job said things like, "The Lord taketh away," maybe that wasn't exactly correct.

Job answered God in Job 42:3

(CEV) You asked why I talk so much when I know so little. I have talked about things that are far beyond my understanding.

(BBE) Who is this who makes dark the purpose of God by words without knowledge? For I have been talking without knowledge about wonders not to be searched out.

(DRB) Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge.

God and Job both seem to agree that Job didn't know what he was talking about.

So, when we hear, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord," we ought to remember that it was Job who said this, not God, and Job spoke "unwisely." PART of this statement is true - the part about God giving - but the part about God taking away is not true.

John 10:10 contrasts the work of Satan and the work of God:

(BBE) The thief comes only to take the sheep and to put them to death: he comes for their destruction: I have come so that they may have life and have it in greater measure.

Subpolar- You're trying too hard. You're taking Scripture and trying to make it work with your ideas of what a "good" God would do. Change your definition of good to be anything that the Lord does and you will have an easier time of it. If God destroys wicked men, it is good. If God sends a pestilence it is good. If God prolongs a man's days, it is good. If he cuts them short by sending a wasting disease it is good. We are too small minded to take that truth in and make sense of how bad things can at one and the same time be turned for good from God's perspective. He does not desire or do evil obviously but he does control its occurrence. At some point, you have to trust God and not our own ability to reason a truth out. The Bible is too full of God's providential work in the events of life ( all of them ) and too plain speaking about God controlling the extent and effect of evil's work for anyone to argue against it. Satan definitely is not sovereign yet people subconsciously or consciously make him so in order to avoid the truth that God doesn't react to events, he brings them to pass.

SP, the verse says it was sovereign in design as it is interpreted by scripture itself. Please consider some words from Ps. 105:

16 Moreover He called for a famine in the land;
He destroyed all the provision of bread.
17 He sent a man before them—
Joseph—who was sold as a slave.
18 They hurt his feet with fetters,
He was laid in irons.
19 Until the time that his word came to pass,
The word of the LORD tested him.
20 The king sent and released him,
The ruler of the people let him go free.
21 He made him lord of his house,
And ruler of all his possessions,
22 To bind his princes at his pleasure,
And teach his elders wisdom.

This should be posted in the great quotes thread:

"Change your definition of good to be anything that the Lord does." ~ whyme

I am sorry moreofHim, I cannot make this short, the nature of this discussion requires the application of the mind. But I will try to keep it simple. And I will attempt to address the issues as they arose in the video.

I would draw your attention to start with that when Dr. Piper referred to Acts 2:23, He inserted the names of Herod, and Pilate. The verse speaks generally about God's plan and foreknowledge. It does not mention names. In other words, it was in fact pre-ordained that Christ would suffer, but there is nothing in that passage that says that God particularly ordained Pilate or Herod, or any particular other Human being to be the one who committed the "greatest sin ever." It is a nut and shell game. What the word says actually is that it was "lawless" men. How could a man be "lawless" if he was only subject to a "law" of Gods sovereignty through "Pre-Determined" sin? Now that Is a much bigger pickle to munch on if you ask me.

Spurgeon has no authority from scripture anywhere to suggest that God pre-determines where a dust mote floats. Having taken calculus based physics, and having read the Bible numerous times I have not found a verse anywhere that says God micro-manages each particle collision, I would be keeping my antennae up for such statements, yet I have read theologians on numerous occasions make such statements. The thought is purely philosophical. And I believe stems from Greek oriented fatalistic philosophy.

In the Old Testament it was commonly practiced, and people were even encouraged to cast lots or read the lights in the Urrim and the Thummim. This was an old covenant practice done away with in the New Testament. The practice was used to determine the will of God on a matter. So that could be what Solomon was referring to in Proverbs 16:33, which by the way, "Dice" is the wrong word, I am not sure what translation he was referring to that used such a word. Dice probably did not even exist. Not even the ESV uses the word Dice, only lots. It does not seem to me that Solomon is making a statement about God controlling the randomness of "lot Tosses" in and of themselves, but for a purpose to determine God's will.

God is perfectly capable of "sovereignly" designing randomness into his creation. Physics proves this principle over and over and over again. As a matter of fact "Randomness" or Entropy, through the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most reliably provable laws of physics known to man. A lot of what you hear about in science is what is called 'theory.' When something in the scientific realm is called a theory, and is accepted generally by the big minds, it is considered to be a valid idea. But underlying a theory there is a doubt because it may not be provable. However, when something becomes a "Law" in the scientific realm, there is no questioning it whatsoever. Randomness through entropy is a fact, because thermodynamics, and particularly the second law is a law, not a theory. God programed randomness on the non-biological particle level, period. So to make a statement about scripture theologically deduced from flawed logic, causes one to see the scriptures through "mote colored glasses."

The Bible never articulately says anywhere EVER that God pre-determines believers to sin. It is a pre-determined view and theological slant that interprets difficult verses toward that viewpoint. The Bible does clearly say however that God hardens already hard hearts to use as his chosen weapon of judgment. If you can show me chapter and verse where the bible does in fact, clearly, state "God Pre-determined your sin." I will recant and ask humbly for forgiveness to speak as boldly as I am.

I love How Ravi Zacharias worded his commentary on Balaam, when he asked God over and over again if he could go out and be a prophet for Hire. He raised the question as to why God allowed it. He said, "If you want to sin and beg God repeatedly for permission to do so, He will step aside and second your motion." Or he said something similar to that, I am quoting from a rusty memory. Ironically we are told on two occasions in the New Testament to not commit the error of Balaam. So I guess then, if my sin is "pre-determined" I cannot obey a verse that tells me not to do the exact thing Balaam did which was to "Pre-Determine" his own sin. God did not do that BALAAM DID! Don't go after the error of Balaam. The idea's behind fatalism are a small portion of Balaam's error wrapped in prettier cellophane. (Balaam's error was more than this, particularly using his giftings to prostitute them for cash being the major one, but I believe what I am also suggesting is true.)

The bible also never directly says that God pre-determines someone to sin whom did not already have a hard and rebellious heart and then hold them accountable for it. The only two examples I can think of are Pharoah and Assyria in the book of Isaiah. But both cases where God used them as they sinned was because they were already rebellious wicked sinners.

I would concede that there seems to be the possibility that non-believers in the Bible, particularly rebels against the ways of God, are subject to principalities we cannot fully comprehend. However, for a Christian to Ever think that God may be wanting them to sin for his glory is to completely and utterly pull down the pillars of the Gospel message.

I never comment on these kinds of threads because I love my brothers who think this way even if I think they are very wrong. I worry for younger people in the faith, it seems very stumbling to me to introduce such ideas into the mind of a young impressionable believer. This kind of thinking could keep someone stuck in pornography addiction for their entire life, never knowing the grace of God once for deliverance.

I apologize if my comment is too long moreofHim. It is not a simple task to deal with. But I felt the need to de-construct the philosophy so that you do not have to ask the question you asked. I am trying to say that the question you pose about the adultery being sanctioned by God is just simply not a valid question, nor is it ever a biblical question. This is why systematic theologies are dangerous and distracting.

Please do not misunderstand me, I love Dr. Piper, I think he has some very beneficial things to say, and has been a blessing to the body of Christ through His calls to taking the call seriously. I just do not see the dogmatism behind fatalism. It just seems purely antithetical to the gospel, at least the way I understand it. I do not discuss this because I like to debate doctrine, as a matter of fact, debating doctrine makes me sick. I love the Bible, I love believers, why would I ever want to argue with someone over scripture? However, I have no problem discussing what appears to be bad philosophy, which is not doctrine. People may think this is a doctrinal issue but it is not. It is a distraction from the simplicity which is in Christ. It concerns me deeply that a Pastor would cause someone to ask these kinds of questions, or even introduce such stumbling possibilities into the minds of "little ones."

In light of all these things, heed the words of our heavenly Father, "This is my beloved Son, Listen to Him." -Mark 9:7 Theologians are not our point source of authority. Jesus is.

To any on here whom may agree with the ideas of fatalism, know that I am your brother, I love you. But scripture tells me to defeat vain philosophies. I feel I am being obedient to the word, have spent time in prayer over this and Colossians 2:8 commends me, at least I believe it does in faith. 1 Timothy 2:6 says we are to shun vain babblings that increase ungodliness. How does fatalism not have the utter potential to increase ungodliness?

AlreadyMind,

You made the statement that God does not use the casting of lots in the NT to inform His people of the direction they should go. That isn't accurate. The apostle Matthias was chosen by lot In Acts. As for God not controlling dust or any other detail of life, I won't go through the myriad of Scripture verses proving otherwise only to say that he controlled the dew on Gideon's fleece when there was none on the ground otherwise. That is pretty minute detail.

When did they cast those lots brother? And please show me where God sanctioned that they do so.

Alreadymind:

Acts 1:23-26 is where lots were cast. I don't find anything in the passages of an explicit sanction by God for the casting of lots. However, since God did not reject Matthias as the 12th apostle and since the choice by lots is included by the Holy Spirit without correction or admonition, I would say it is safe to assume He sanctioned the choice by lots. I'm more comfortable saying that than assuming it was not sanctioned from the text.

Now that is an answer I can completely respect brother. Thank you. It is my personal opinion that the timing of the choosing of Mathias is Pre-New Covenant. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the Church things changed. The ante was upped. It was a game changer. This had not happened yet when the disciples cast lots.

I would also encourage you to re-read what I said. Nowhere in my response did I say that God "Never" controls dust motes.

Jesus calmed the waves, God controlled the Dew. God makes the mountains skip as an hart. My words were carefully chosen. There is a huge difference between dust randomly floating through the air, and God coalescing those dust motes to His intention and purpose, a.k.a. man. The two ideas are completely separate. One does not negate the other.

If you feel that my dealing with the issues one at a time in relation to the video were bad conclusions, I encourage you to lay the axe to the root of the tree. If, however, I am right that improper exegesis was used, and words were added to the scriptures, then I think that should be acknowledged brother.

It is my personal opinion that the timing of the choosing of Mathias is Pre-New Covenant

It should be noted that Hebrews 9:18 and 10:20 recognize the sheding of blood as the time in which a covenant is inaugurated. The pouring out of the Spirit, while a distinct and important event, technically had nothing to do with the timeline in which the new covenant was established.

Covenants were "cut" by the shedding of blood. Thus, the moment Christ died on the cross was technically when the New Covenant was inaugurated. It may seem strange to say, but in my opinion the casting of lots is still a valid practice, even with the outpouring of the Spirit at the day of Pentecost.

I had a fascinating thought this morning meditating on this subject: God is the author and finisher of our faith, not our sin.

My two cents.

Jimmy, I regretted my use of the phrase New Covenant the instant I hit submit. Pentecost was a filling up of things. I believe that if someone cast lots in faith, God would honor it, on principle it is not a doctrine advocated anywhere in the Epistles. Just like I don't think taking one view of whether or not Gideon should have put out a fleece. I take a third route and believe that God was gracious to condescend to Gideon's weak faith. There are no formula's to faith.

This type of discussion is where rightly dividing and handling scripture is a knife's edge. Narrative is tricky. I like how Ron Bailey always says that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Building theological structures from weak evidence, arguing from silence, and assuming a non-salient assertion is enough to write an entire theology is what I am determined to share with the brothers as wrong.

I am trying to point out that narrative is not always safe to build doctrines on. Again I am trying to choose my words carefully.

"I had a fascinating thought this morning meditating on this subject: God is the author and finisher of our faith, not our sin."

AMEN!!!

Subpolar- You're trying too hard. You're taking Scripture and trying to make it work with your ideas ...

It seems that those who are trying really hard to make Scripture work with their idea(s) about God are those who say God causes evil.

They have to "twist" scriptures in order to do this, such as John 10:10 saying Jesus came to do good things, Jesus' statement that the Father was good, the fact that God is love, etc....

Jesus taught that if evil people do good things for their children, how much more would God do good.

All these scriptures and more have to be twisted to say that God causes evil.

"I would draw your attention to start with that when Dr. Piper referred to Acts 2:23, He inserted the names of Herod, and Pilate. The verse speaks generally about God's plan and foreknowledge. It does not mention names. In other words, it was in fact pre-ordained that Christ would suffer, but there is nothing in that passage that says that God particularly ordained Pilate or Herod, or any particular other Human being to be the one who committed the "greatest sin ever." "

Piper here was referring to Acts 4:27-28:

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

"Spurgeon has no authority from scripture anywhere to suggest that God pre-determines where a dust mote floats. Having taken calculus based physics, and having read the Bible numerous times I have not found a verse anywhere that says God micro-manages each particle collision, I would be keeping my antennae up for such statements, yet I have read theologians on numerous occasions make such statements. The thought is purely philosophical. And I believe stems from Greek oriented fatalistic philosophy."

I believe Spurgeon (and others) draw such conclusions from such texts as Col. 1 and Heb. 1, among others.

I had a fascinating thought this morning meditating on this subject: God is the author and finisher of our faith, not our sin.

AMEN!! God is the author of our salvation, we are the "author" of our own fate

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

We must reconcile evil in itself and evil formed in a man by the liar and carried away by mans own lust.

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Nothing exists without God putting it into existence.

Evil could not exist with God creating it.

In Christ: Phillip

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light darkness : I make peace , and create

This thread initially was in reference to John Piper's views, and I have heard him address this idea:

"GOD does not NEED evil to show us what Good is. His perfect will would have been for Adam to eat freely from the Tree of Life and not the forbidden tree"

He would disagree citing Romans 5:

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

There is a dimension of love man could not have known without the existence of sin. Jesus also says there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for his friends (Jn. 15:15); again this would have been unnecessary in the garden. Part of the absolute beauty of the gospel is that God loves us and gave Himself for us when we deserved everything but that.

Now, Piper would say that this was therefore God's intention from the start. He is the firstborn over all creation and was slain before the foundation of the world. For a man like Piper (pulling off of a man like John Flavel), Christ was first created in God's mind, then a people to save, and a planet to work it all out on. Jesus Christ is not a reaction to a creature's free will; He is the goal of life, the center of creation and history, and of Him, to Him, and through Him are all things. Where else but the cross could God have revealed so much of His love, justice, mercy, grace, kindness, wisdom, power, etc? Piper's series on "Spectacular Sins" treats his position pretty thoroughly. It is available for free mp3 or e-book download at desiringgod.org.

In regards to your thoughts JIG, Piper is persuaded that God can ordain evil, and not be evil. As mentioned earlier, he cites the story of Joseph and the Crucifixion as evidence of that.

ISAIAH 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

ISAIAH 45:7. Forming light. As if he had said, that they who formerly were wont to ascribe everything either to fortune or to idols shall acknowledge the true God, so as to ascribe power and the government and glory of all things, to him alone. He does not speak of perfect knowledge, though this intelligence is requisite for the attainment of it. But since the Prophet says that it shall be manifest even to heathens, that everything is directed and governed by the will of God, they who bear the Christian name ought to be ashamed, when they strip him of his power, and bestow it on various governors, whom they have formed according to their fancy, as we see done in Popery; for God is not acknowledged when a bare and empty name is given to him, but when we ascribe to him full authority.

Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14, 23.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.
(John Calvin's Commentary on ISAIAH 45:7)

JiG said,

"...what "Piper would say" is of little concern to me."

JiG also said,

"I believe with all of my heart in free-will."

What JiG would say is of little concern to me!

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

1 Cor. 2:14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them , because spiritually they are discerned;

Rom. 8:5-8 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

John 3:6 That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is spirit.

John 12:37-40 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

John 8:43-45 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

John 6:43-45 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Mark 4:9-12 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.

Proverbs 20:12 The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.

John 3:7 Do not wonder because I said to you, You must be generated from above.

Worship God

Amen Jesus-is-God. The Lord knows are hearts; but @ the same time, the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. You shall know them by their fruits.

JiG,

So I ask you,do you love:

John Calvin
Jonathan Edwards
John Bunyan
George Whitefield
George Muller
William Tyndale
John Wycliffe
Charles Spurgeon
Arthur Pink
John Piper
R.C. Sproul

These men and numerous others believed and taught the same doctrine of "no free-will",God's sovereign electing grace in predestination,as well as "no losing" salvation.

JIG, no qualms here over your position or statements. I argue from Piper's perspective throughout the discussion because of the OP and thread topic.