Question on sovereignty of God [Archive]

Bob Moore

12th December 2005, 05:50 PM

If the will of man is able to thwart the will of God, then it is man who is soverign, not God. Below is a very good outline of what the idea of divine soverignty carries with it.

Hebrews 4:13a - Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight:...

"Christ is the Lord God omniscient; there is no creature, in general, rational, or irrational, animate or inanimate, but what are known to him, and seen by him; for all creatures are made, and upheld by him, and he is omnipresent; and in particular, there is no man but is manifest to him; so בריה, "creature", is often used by the Rabbins for "man"; all men, openly profane men, who are enemies to Christ, and his people, are under his eye and notice; he knows their persons, he sees their actions, even those that are most secretly devised and performed against him, and his saints; and he takes such notice of them, as to bring them into judgment for them; he knows formal professors of religion, and upon what foot they have taken up their profession, and how they keep their lusts with their profession; he can distinguish between profession and grace; and he knows and observes the springs and progress of their apostasy: and as for true believers, he knows their persons, and knows them to be his; he sees their sins and their weaknesses; he takes notice of their graces, and observes their wants; and there is nothing in them, or belongs to them, but what is before him, even the secret desires of their souls. So Philo the Jew says (q) the divine Word reaches to, and comprehends all things, nothing escapes him: and this phrase is very commonly used of the divine Being by the Jews, הכל גלוי לפניו, "all things are manifest before him" (r); and this being used of Christ, is no inconsiderable proof of his proper deity: "

Hebrews 4:13b - but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

"The words are an allusion to wrestlers, who exercised naked, and took each other by their necks and collars; and when one was thrown upon his back, as the word rendered "opened" is by some translated, he was publicly exposed and known: or to the putting of a creature in such a posture when sacrificed; or rather to the cutting of it up, and laying open its entrails: and especially to the manner of doing it among the Jews, with which these persons, the apostle writes to, were acquainted: and it was this; when the lamb for the daily sacrifice was slain, the priest hung it up by the foot, and skinned it; and when he came to the breast, he cut off the head; and having finished the skinning of it, he divided the heart, and took out the blood; then he cut off the shoulders; and when he came to the right leg, he cut it off, and then cut it down through the chine bone, and כולו גלוי לפניו, "all of it was manifest before him" (s). The very phrase before used. The word here used seems to answer to ערף, which, with the Arabians, signifies, "to know", or make known; and מעריף, with the Rabbins; is used for a companion, a familiar one that is well known; the theme in the Hebrew, is, עורף, the "neck". The last clause, "with whom we have to do", manifestly points at the person here spoken of, Jesus Christ: saints have a concern with him now, as their way to the Father, as their Saviour and Redeemer; they have to do with his blood for pardon and cleansing, and with his righteousness for justification, and with his fulness for every supply of grace; and with him as their King to rule over them, protect and defend them, and as their prophet to teach them, and their high priest to intercede for them. Moreover, the words may be rendered, "to whom we must give an account"; and so the Syriac version renders them, "to whom they give an account"; as all men must at the great day: and all this that is said of the Word of God should engage to care, watchfulness, and circumspection in the course of a profession of religion."

(q) De Sacrif. Abel, p. 140. (r) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 122. 2. Vid. Seder Tephillot, fol. 281. 1. Ed. Basil. (s) Misna Tamid, c. 4. sect. 2.

{quoted from John Gill}

Now consider Acts 17:28a: For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; ....

In other words, everything to do with us is "in Him", i.e. we can not do anything at all apart from Him. That is true both of the believer and of the unbeliever.

orthedoxy

12th December 2005, 07:28 PM

Loaded question. Please reprhase.

Do you credit your good works to yourself or to God?
When you preach and someone believes in Christ, do you say you saved that
person? The same way why credit yourself for the evil?
You just did Gods will.

Because he has willingly transgressed the law of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
Pleraase rephrase.
Weren't you doing Gods will by commiting the murder?
How can we commit the murder willingly when we couldn't have done otherwise?
Tell me how is that different then a programed robot that was programed to kill? Wouldn't the programer be credited for the kill?

Jon_

12th December 2005, 09:27 PM

Do you credit your good works to yourself or to God?
To God (Php. 2:13).

When you preach and someone believes in Christ, do you say you saved that person?
No.

The same way why credit yourself for the evil?
Simple. I can choose to effect sin in my own life. I cannot choose to effect the salvation of another person. I am accountable for my own sin, but I am not accountable for the salvation of another.

Sin is imputed to me because of my willful transgression of the law. Righteousness is not imputed to me by virtue of my good works, for it is the Spirit of God who works through me to will and to do of his good pleasure. It is only by the imputed righteousness of Christ that I am justified.

You just did Gods will.
Yes. And?

Weren't you doing Gods will by commiting the murder?
Yes.

How can we commit the murder willingly when we couldn't have done otherwise?
This is another loaded question. It assumes that we cannot do something willingly if God also wills it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. Until then, I will not answer your question.

Tell me how is that different then a programed robot that was programed to kill?
Because a robot has no will of its own.

Wouldn't the programer be credited for the kill?
Yes. But God isn't a programmer and we're not robots.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

orthedoxy

13th December 2005, 01:50 AM

To God (Php. 2:13).

No.

Simple. I can choose to effect sin in my own life. I cannot choose to effect the salvation of another person. I am accountable for my own sin, but I am not accountable for the salvation of another.

Sin is imputed to me because of my willful transgression of the law. Righteousness is not imputed to me by virtue of my good works, for it is the Spirit of God who works through me to will and to do of his good pleasure. It is only by the imputed righteousness of Christ that I am justified.

You are made to do Good works so why are you not credit for them insted of God?
You are made to do Bad works why are you credit for the bad works?

Yes. And?

Yes.

This is another loaded question. It assumes that we cannot do something willingly if God also wills it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. Until then, I will not answer your question.

Not if God wills it but if he has determine it.
If you were made to kill how can you say that you willingly killed?

Because a robot has no will of its own.

Yes. But God isn't a programmer and we're not robots.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
Why do you say a robot doesn't have a will? If you built a robot with a gun in it's hand doesn't the robot have a will to pull the triger or not? If not please explain.

Jon_

13th December 2005, 10:26 AM

You are made to do Good works so why are you not credit for them insted of God? You are made to do Bad works why are you credit for the bad works?
This line of questioning has become ambiguous. Define "credit."

Not if God wills it but if he has determine it.
That's the same thing.

If you were made to kill how can you say that you willingly killed?
How can you say I wasn't? You're still asking loaded questions, assuming that God's will and man's will can never both desire an end.

Why do you say a robot doesn't have a will? If you built a robot with a gun in it's hand doesn't the robot have a will to pull the triger or not? If not please explain.
You are very silly. :)

Robots are non-rational. They are incapable of rationally choosing choice a over choice b. Instead, all they do is process the input they receive with the commands the programmer has entered into them. They have no spirits. They are not held accountable by God. Indeed, they cannot be held accountable by God because they are incapable of making rational choices.

You seem to be fatally misunderstanding the main issue of theodicy (the theory of evil). We are accountable to God for our sins because God chooses to hold us accountable. We can be held accountable because (1) we are rational, and (2) because we have a will and are capable of choice.

Sin is the willful transgression of the law. The law is the decree of God to man concerning those things that God requires him to do and to not do. As God is the Lawgiver and man is the law-receiver (if you will), man is capable of transgressing the law, whereas God is not. Even if we do not consider God's holiness, which makes him incapable of sin, he would still not be sinful, for who would hold him accountable? There is no one who can speak against God. There are none that might reply unto him.

The problem of evil is a non-problem. I find it funny that Arminians and other nominal Christians find this to be the most convincing argument against Calvinists. Atheists and pagans also find this the most convincing argument against Christianity. Clearly, those who reject the biblical view of theodicy and the non-problem of evil still struggle with a carnal mind that rejects God's sovereign lordship over their lives. It is a great pity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

orthedoxy

13th December 2005, 03:13 PM

This line of questioning has become ambiguous. Define "credit."

That's the same thing.

Can you say the Good work is your doing and not Gods? if not why would you say we are evil and not God?

How can you say I wasn't? You're still asking loaded questions, assuming that God's will and man's will can never both desire an end.

You are very silly. :)

Robots are non-rational. They are incapable of rationally choosing choice a over choice b. Instead, all they do is process the input they receive with the commands the programmer has entered into them. They have no spirits. They are not held accountable by God. Indeed, they cannot be held accountable by God because they are incapable of making rational choices.

You seem to be fatally misunderstanding the main issue of theodicy (the theory of evil). We are accountable to God for our sins because God chooses to hold us accountable. We can be held accountable because (1) we are rational, and (2) because we have a will and are capable of choice.

Sin is the willful transgression of the law. The law is the decree of God to man concerning those things that God requires him to do and to not do. As God is the Lawgiver and man is the law-receiver (if you will), man is capable of transgressing the law, whereas God is not. Even if we do not consider God's holiness, which makes him incapable of sin, he would still not be sinful, for who would hold him accountable? There is no one who can speak against God. There are none that might reply unto him.

The problem of evil is a non-problem. I find it funny that Arminians and other nominal Christians find this to be the most convincing argument against Calvinists. Atheists and pagans also find this the most convincing argument against Christianity. Clearly, those who reject the biblical view of theodicy and the non-problem of evil still struggle with a carnal mind that rejects God's sovereign lordship over their lives. It is a great pity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Non Calvinst think the Calvinst view is pretty silly :)
A robot has a choice to pick A over B It's just their choices are controlled or irresistibly chosen for them.
God is holy and therefore your theology doesn't make sense. If molesting kids is a sin and God will is to molest kids then God is committing sin.
Since we know God can't sin then we know it's not his will and he has not ordained such event. You are saying in a sense God is a child molester and we can't say he sins. How can such God be holy?
I'm not making an argument against God Just your view of God doesn't make sense also I believe God is sovereign I just don't think you understand the meaning of sovereignty Unless you can prove it otherwise.

Jon_

13th December 2005, 03:53 PM

Can you say the Good work is your doing and not Gods?
It is both.

if not why would you say we are evil and not God?
We are evil by virtue of the fact that we have inherented original sin from Adam. He became sinful when God imputed unrighteousness to him for his transgression of the commandment to not eat of the tree.

Causing evil and being evil are two different things. It is written,
(Isaiah 45:7 KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And also:
(James 1:13 KJV) 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.

Non Calvinst think the Calvinst view is pretty silly :)
No doubt. But there is no rational basis for rejecting the Calvinist view. They make think we're silly, but that just makes them silly and irrational. :)

A robot has a choice to pick A over B It's just their choices are controlled or irresistibly chosen for them. God is holy and therefore your theology doesn't make sense.
Good job. You have completely ignored the point I made about man being a rational creature with a will and a robot lacking both of these two key characteristics. The rest of your post is nothing more than ridiculous straw man gobbledegook, so I won't bother with it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

orthedoxy

13th December 2005, 07:00 PM

It is both.

We are evil by virtue of the fact that we have inherented original sin from Adam. He became sinful when God imputed unrighteousness to him for his transgression of the commandment to not eat of the tree.

Causing evil and being evil are two different things. It is written,
(Isaiah 45:7 KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And also:
(James 1:13 KJV) 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.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Not evil but disaster

No doubt. But there is no rational basis for rejecting the Calvinist view. They make think we're silly, but that just makes them silly and irrational. :)

Good job. You have completely ignored the point I made about man being a rational creature with a will and a robot lacking both of these two key characteristics. The rest of your post is nothing more than ridiculous straw man gobbledegook, so I won't bother with it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
You have completely ignored the point I made. From Calvinist view you can't be rational you are as rational as a robot that is programmed to do certain things also your will is no different then that of a robot because it's not free.
You can't claim to have done the act if you were ordained (programmed) to do the act. You still haven't answered the question why do you credit the good acts to God and not the bad ones?

Jon_

13th December 2005, 10:10 PM

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Not evil but disaster
Do a word study on the Hebrew ra'ah. In the meantime, here is another:
(Lamentations 3:38 KJV) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

IYou have completely ignored the point I made.
You mean your straw man argument? Of course I ignored it. It is irrelevant.

From Calvinist view you can't be rational you are as rational as a robot that is programmed to do certain things also your will is no different then that of a robot because it's not free.
If you're going to continue using this invalid robot analogy, then we're done. That you fail to see there is no univocal element between robots and human beings, you will utterly fail in your representation of Calvinism. In truth, I believe that you fully understand the implications of Calvinism, but are simlpy too carnally minded to understand that you don't have anything approaching the notion of "free will" and you are offended by that. The idea of a sovereign God that exercises complete and total control over your life offends you, and that is why you despise Calvinism.

And yet, sovereign is the Lord God, as it is written:
(Job 23:13 KJV) But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

(Psalm 115:3 KJV) But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

(Romans 9:18 KJV) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Are you then ashamed of your Lord? Are you ashamed of Christ's words?
(John 6:44 KJV) 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.
Are you ashamed that God is Lord over your life and that your very breath and very being hinges on his will? You could not breath, but that the Lord God ordained your very breath? Does this offend you?

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but you indeed seem to be. It is written,
(Mark 8:38 KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Therefore, repent! For you truly have a perverse and wicked understanding of the Lord my God. Your carnal mind truly leads you to error in your understanding of God. It is written again,
(Romans 8:7 KJV) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Confess your sins and you shall be forgiven. Repent of your evil thoughts of God and he will be faithful in imputing Christ's righteousness to you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

inchristalone221

14th December 2005, 12:45 AM

Jon is doing a wonderful job of explaining the calvinist view on these questions, but allow me to interject a thought which may help or brother understand what Jon is saying.

If molesting kids is a sin and God will is to molest kids then God is committing sin.

I believe you misunderstand the Biblical concept of God being without sin. God is sinless, perfect, just, and righteous not because He meets those standards, but because He IS the standard by which we measure those things. God cannot sin in that if He does something it is not sin for Him to do it. God is not simply a being that meets an established standard, He is the being by whom the standard is deduced.

Consider the thoughts of Paul in Romans 9. (Is there then injustice with God? By no means! On the contrary, who are you, oh man, that you would question God?) When God acts, he is just in His action. He is just not because His actions meet some standard that makes them just, they are just because they are His actions.

seekingpurity047

14th December 2005, 11:46 AM

Jon is doing a wonderful job of explaining the calvinist view on these questions, but allow me to interject a thought which may help or brother understand what Jon is saying.

I believe you misunderstand the Biblical concept of God being without sin. God is sinless, perfect, just, and righteous not because He meets those standards, but because He IS the standard by which we measure those things. God cannot sin in that if He does something it is not sin for Him to do it. God is not simply a being that meets an established standard, He is the being by whom the standard is deduced.

Consider the thoughts of Paul in Romans 9. (Is there then injustice with God? By no means! On the contrary, who are you, oh man, that you would question God?) When God acts, he is just in His action. He is just not because His actions meet some standard that makes them just, they are just because they are His actions.

Allow me to add my two cents.

God said "Thou shalt not kill"...

Interestingly enough, he preordained Jesus to be killed on a cross for our sins. Was God sinning in doing this? Surely, my brother, He was not.

To the glory of God,

Randy

Jon_

14th December 2005, 01:13 PM

Allow me to add my two cents.

God said "Thou shalt not kill"...

Interestingly enough, he preordained Jesus to be killed on a cross for our sins. Was God sinning in doing this? Surely, my brother, He was not.

To the glory of God,

Randy
Just a couple others:
(Joshua 11:20 KJV) For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.

(1 Chronicles 10:14 KJV) And [Saul] enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

orthedoxy

14th December 2005, 05:51 PM

Do a word study on the Hebrew ra'ah. In the meantime, here is another:
(Lamentations 3:38 KJV) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Lamentations 3:38 (New International Version)
38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that both calamities and good things come?

You mean your straw man argument? Of course I ignored it. It is irrelevant.

It's not a straw man argument and it's relevant.
Every non Calvinist see the same thing. You are like a robot if you are programmed to do certain things.

If you're going to continue using this invalid robot analogy, then we're done. That you fail to see there is no univocal element between robots and human beings, you will utterly fail in your representation of Calvinism. In truth, I believe that you fully understand the implications of Calvinism, but are simlpy too carnally minded to understand that you don't have anything approaching the notion of "free will" and you are offended by that. The idea of a sovereign God that exercises complete and total control over your life offends you, and that is why you despise Calvinism.

You could ignore the fact from Calvinist view you become no more than a robot that does what ever he is programmed to do therefore you should not be responsible for the action but the programmer. You view teaches one should blame the robot not the programmer. It's relevant if you don't think so then don't reply.
If you believe God is in complete control of your life then why do Calvinist sin?

And yet, sovereign is the Lord God, as it is written:
(Job 23:13 KJV) But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

(Psalm 115:3 KJV) But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

(Romans 9:18 KJV) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Are you then ashamed of your Lord? Are you ashamed of Christ's words?
(John 6:44 KJV) 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.
Are you ashamed that God is Lord over your life and that your very breath and very being hinges on his will? You could not breath, but that the Lord God ordained your very breath? Does this offend you?

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but you indeed seem to be. It is written,
(Mark 8:38 KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Therefore, repent! For you truly have a perverse and wicked understanding of the Lord my God. Your carnal mind truly leads you to error in your understanding of God. It is written again,
(Romans 8:7 KJV) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Confess your sins and you shall be forgiven. Repent of your evil thoughts of God and he will be faithful in imputing Christ's righteousness to you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
I'm not ashamed of Christ. I'm ashamed of people that make him out to be a liar and murderer.

orthedoxy

14th December 2005, 05:59 PM

Jon is doing a wonderful job of explaining the calvinist view on these questions, but allow me to interject a thought which may help or brother understand what Jon is saying.

I believe you misunderstand the Biblical concept of God being without sin. God is sinless, perfect, just, and righteous not because He meets those standards, but because He IS the standard by which we measure those things. God cannot sin in that if He does something it is not sin for Him to do it. God is not simply a being that meets an established standard, He is the being by whom the standard is deduced.

Consider the thoughts of Paul in Romans 9. (Is there then injustice with God? By no means! On the contrary, who are you, oh man, that you would question God?) When God acts, he is just in His action. He is just not because His actions meet some standard that makes them just, they are just because they are His actions.

Oh ok that explains it. You believe God is a liar and a murderer and a child molester but that is not a sin when he does it. Also when God is molesting babies he is Just and we are not to question him.
Is this what you are saying?

orthedoxy

14th December 2005, 06:07 PM

Allow me to add my two cents.

God said "Thou shalt not kill"...

Interestingly enough, he preordained Jesus to be killed on a cross for our sins. Was God sinning in doing this? Surely, my brother, He was not.

To the glory of God,

Randy
Randy
Do you believe your God betrayed and tortured and kill my Lord? Do you believe God called Jesus a liar and mocked him on the cross?
I'm done on this topic you guys should really realize what you are saying.

pinkieposies

14th December 2005, 06:45 PM

Randy
Do you believe your God betrayed and tortured and kill my Lord? Do you believe God called Jesus a liar and mocked him on the cross?
I'm done on this topic you guys should really realize what you are saying.

If God did not preordain those things to happen it would not be possible that sinners like you and me could be saved. God did not actually, physically do these things to Christ Himself, but allowed them to happen because His will will be fulfilled. I'm sorry you have come to think that we believe God is a murderer, child-molester, etc...But you are wrong. Our God is a good God who does not delight in evil or suffering, but that does not mean that He does not use those things for His ulimate purpose and glory. There is no contradiction in that, and if you read your Bible you will find it in every book from Genisis to the Revelations. God is sovereign, holy, and just. Period.

God Bless,
Erin

inchristalone221

14th December 2005, 06:50 PM

One of the men I grew up learning from, Dwight Pentecost, used this illustration to describe God's PURPOSE for sin. That's right, God has a divinely ordained purpose for sin. Here is the illustration:

A young man visited a friend of his who was a jeweler in a major store. The man asked him "would you like to see a million-dollar diamond?" Eager to see this gem, the young man held out his hand and recieved into it a small object the size of a quarter. It was in no way impressive, indeed it looked like a piece of translucent glass with no er of its own. The jeweler laughed at the young man's unimpressed reaction and took the diamond over to the counter. He set it against a background of black felt, allowing the diamond to reflect light through its facets uninterrupted and in contrast to the blackness of the felt. The sight was truly one to behold.

In the same way, sin serves the purpose of revealing the manifold glory of God.

seekingpurity047

14th December 2005, 06:52 PM

Randy
Do you believe your God betrayed and tortured and kill my Lord? Do you believe God called Jesus a liar and mocked him on the cross?
I'm done on this topic you guys should really realize what you are saying.

You leave because you don't like the truth.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18720a)] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18720b)]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18722c)] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18723d)] and be satisfied [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18723e)] ;
by his knowledge [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18723f)] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18724g)]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=31#fen-NIV-18724h)]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

To the glory of God,

Randy

Jon_

14th December 2005, 06:59 PM

Lamentations 3:38 (New International Version)
38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that both calamities and good things come?
So, a calamity is a good thing, right? Have you not read the Scriptures?

H7451
רעה / רע

ra‛ / râ‛âh

BDB Definition:

1) bad, evil (adjective)

1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

1c) evil, displeasing

1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

1e) bad (of value)

1f) worse than, worst (comparison)

1g) sad, unhappy

1h) evil (hurtful)

1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

1j2) deeds, actions

2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity (noun masculine)

2a) evil, distress, adversity

2b) evil, injury, wrong

2c) evil (ethical)

3) evil, misery, distress, injury (noun feminine)

3a) evil, misery, distress

3b) evil, injury, wrong

3c) evil (ethical)

Part of Speech: see above in Definition

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H7489

Same Word by TWOT Number: 2191a, 2191c

H7451
רעה רע

ra‛ râ‛âh

rah, raw-aw'

From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong.
Ra'ah always refers to evil, wickedness, or some result thereof! Are you so afraid to turn the pages of God's word to find this yourself? Are you so incapable of spending at least a couple of minutes with a lexicon to aright your understanding of Scripture? All you did was go out and get a different translation and then concluded the matter was resolved. How lazy and unscholastic can you get?

It is the Lord God who creates the evil and the good! Or do you disbelieve the Scripture?(John 1:3 KJV) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(Isaiah 64:8 KJV) But now, O LORD, thou [i]art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Your argument is so incredibly foolish. You say that if Calvinism is true we are nothing more than programmed robots, which makes God sinful. O what folly excels in you! Where is the light of Christ to be found? It cannot be said to be found in you. It is written, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word" (John 8:43). Therefore, you need repentance and a new heart of flesh! You need regeneration by the Holy Spirit, for "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). And "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

You cannot understand that if God is the Creator of all men then he is ultimately responsible for all of their actions. You say the programmer of the robot is responsible for the actions of the robot, well the father of a child is responsible for the raising of the child. Do you then charge God with irresponsible child-rearing for the sin in the world? You foolish one, you do not even understand the implications of your own position. All men were created by God for God and in him we live, move, and have our being. It is God who sustains us. Therefore, if he knows all things and knows the sins we will commit, he is guilty by virtue of the fact that he can stop it but does not! To argue free will in this case is to say that God is not omnipotent. To say God can do everything except interfere with free will is to say God can't do something, which amounts to a denial of his omnipotence.

If God created man to serve and worship him, then God is responsible for allowing his creation to get out of control. If a man creates a robot and gives it no instructions but simply allows it to learn and do on its own, he is still responsible for the existence of the robot, and if that robot watches too much T.V. and becomes violent and terroristic, then the creator is responsible for that according to you.

You hypocrite! You charge Calvinists with the same folly you fall into yourself. You do not discern the holiness and sovereignty of God, therefore you are an offense to the faith. Repent of your wickedness!

Every non Calvinist see the same thing. You are like a robot if you are programmed to do certain things. You could ignore the fact from Calvinist view you become no more than a robot that does what ever he is programmed to do therefore you should not be responsible for the action but the programmer. You view teaches one should blame the robot not the programmer. It's relevant if you don't think so then don't reply.
If you believe God is in complete control of your life then why do Calvinist sin?
That's your definition of robot? In that case, every living thing is robotic! Humans are programmed to breath, hunger, thirst, and be enjoined to all other manner of temporal effects due to our temporal nature. Not only humans, but animals and plants as well are robots because, according to the scientists, the combination of DNA that comprises the genetics of a living thing is predetermined by the progenitor of the progeny. Your definition makes this completely robotic.

Your accusation of "robot" is simply absurd because you cannot avoid the implications that it creates. Unless you presume that the earth randomly came into existence without the guiding hand of God, you must admit "robotic" elements in everything because your ridiculous apologetic requires it. Instead of pointing out a flaw in Calvinism, you only point out the core problem in your own argument: you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not ashamed of Christ. I'm ashamed of people that make him out to be a liar and murderer.
I am ashamed of fools and hypocrites who presume to speak truth of God but instead blaspheme and disgrace him.

Thus, I am done speaking to you. Your mind is thoroughly carnal. I have delivered the truth of God's word to you. I now pray that the Holy Spirit enables you to receive it. I pray that God will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh that you might believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. I pray that God faithfully reveals his counsel to you that you might be saved from the just punishment of your unrighteous and unclean thoughts toward God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Bob Moore

14th December 2005, 07:41 PM

Allow me to add my two cents.

God said "Thou shalt not kill"...

Oops. No He didn't. Many translations have substituted "kill" for the correct term: "murder". There is a huge difference between the two things. It is a logical impossibility that "kill" was the command, because God never, ever, contradicts Himself, and He frequently commanded His people to kill. Not to mention the judicial necessity of execution ( commanded in the OT, and affirmed by Jesus in the NT ). Please study this exposition by John Gill:

Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill. Not meaning any sort of creatures, for there are some to be killed for the food and nourishment of men, and others for their safety and preservation; but rational creatures, men, women, and children, any of the human species, of every age, sex, condition, or nation; no man has a right to take away his own life, or the life of another; by this law is forbidden suicide, or self-murder, parricide or murder of parents, homicide or the murder of man; yet killing of men in lawful war, or in defence of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate, and killing a man at unawares, without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law; but taking away the life of another through private malice and revenge, and even stabbing of a man's character, and so all things tending to or designed for the taking away of life, and all plots, conspiracies, and contrivances for that purpose, even all sinful anger, undue wrath and envy, rancour of all mind, all malice in thought, word, or deed, are contrary to this precept, see Mat_5:21 and which, on the other hand, requires that men should do all they can for the ease, peace, and preservation of the lives of men: this is the sixth command, but, in the Septuagint, the strict order in which this and the two following precepts lie is not observed, rehearsing them thus, "thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill"; and so in Mar_10:19 the order is inverted.

Interestingly enough, he preordained Jesus to be killed on a cross for our sins. Was God sinning in doing this? Surely, my brother, He was not.

God can not sin. And Jesus was not 'killed' in any lawfull sense. He was 'murdered'.

seekingpurity047

14th December 2005, 09:22 PM

Oops. No He didn't. Many translations have substituted "kill" for the correct term: "murder". There is a huge difference between the two things. It is a logical impossibility that "kill" was the command, because God never, ever, contradicts Himself, and He frequently commanded His people to kill. Not to mention the judicial necessity of execution ( commanded in the OT, and affirmed by Jesus in the NT ). Please study this exposition by John Gill:

Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill. Not meaning any sort of creatures, for there are some to be killed for the food and nourishment of men, and others for their safety and preservation; but rational creatures, men, women, and children, any of the human species, of every age, sex, condition, or nation; no man has a right to take away his own life, or the life of another; by this law is forbidden suicide, or self-murder, parricide or murder of parents, homicide or the murder of man; yet killing of men in lawful war, or in defence of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate, and killing a man at unawares, without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law; but taking away the life of another through private malice and revenge, and even stabbing of a man's character, and so all things tending to or designed for the taking away of life, and all plots, conspiracies, and contrivances for that purpose, even all sinful anger, undue wrath and envy, rancour of all mind, all malice in thought, word, or deed, are contrary to this precept, see Mat_5:21 and which, on the other hand, requires that men should do all they can for the ease, peace, and preservation of the lives of men: this is the sixth command, but, in the Septuagint, the strict order in which this and the two following precepts lie is not observed, rehearsing them thus, "thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill"; and so in Mar_10:19 the order is inverted.

God can not sin. And Jesus was not 'killed' in any lawfull sense. He was 'murdered'.

I stand corrected.

orthedoxy

15th December 2005, 02:47 PM

If God did not preordain those things to happen it would not be possible that sinners like you and me could be saved. God did not actually, physically do these things to Christ Himself, but allowed them to happen because His will will be fulfilled. I'm sorry you have come to think that we believe God is a murderer, child-molester, etc...But you are wrong. Our God is a good God who does not delight in evil or suffering, but that does not mean that He does not use those things for His ulimate purpose and glory. There is no contradiction in that, and if you read your Bible you will find it in every book from Genisis to the Revelations. God is sovereign, holy, and just. Period.

God Bless,
Erin

You don't understand Calvinist view fully.
They don't think he just allowed things to happen but caused it to happen.
Read the verse that is being misquoted Lamentations 3:38 Jon is trying to make it say out of the mouth of the lord proceedeth evil.How can you say Calvinist don’t believe God is evil?
Randy quotes Isaiah 53 to show God fulfilled his prophesies by betraying mocking and killing Jesus. They don’t believe prophecies are foretelling the future but God is making it happen.
Our God is a good God but not from the Calvinist point of view.

orthedoxy

15th December 2005, 02:52 PM

So, a calamity is a good thing, right? Have you not read the Scriptures?

Sending one to prison is not an evil act.
You can’t seem to see a difference between punishing one for their evil act and molesting an infant.

Ra'ah always refers to evil, wickedness, or some result thereof! Are you so afraid to turn the pages of God's word to find this yourself? Are you so incapable of spending at least a couple of minutes with a lexicon to aright your understanding of Scripture? All you did was go out and get a different translation and then concluded the matter was resolved. How lazy and unscholastic can you get?

The different translation is more correct on the translation of that verse.
Please explain if from the mouth of the Lord evil comes then how can you say your God is not evil?

It is the Lord God who creates the evil and the good! Or do you disbelieve the Scripture?(John 1:3 KJV) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(Isaiah 64:8 KJV) But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Your argument is so incredibly foolish. You say that if Calvinism is true we are nothing more than programmed robots, which makes God sinful. O what folly excels in you! Where is the light of Christ to be found? It cannot be said to be found in you. It is written, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word" (John 8:43). Therefore, you need repentance and a new heart of flesh! You need regeneration by the Holy Spirit, for "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). And "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

You cannot understand that if God is the Creator of all men then he is ultimately responsible for all of their actions. You say the programmer of the robot is responsible for the actions of the robot, well the father of a child is responsible for the raising of the child. Do you then charge God with irresponsible child-rearing for the sin in the world? You foolish one, you do not even understand the implications of your own position. All men were created by God for God and in him we live, move, and have our being. It is God who sustains us. Therefore, if he knows all things and knows the sins we will commit, he is guilty by virtue of the fact that he can stop it but does not! To argue free will in this case is to say that God is not omnipotent. To say God can do everything except interfere with free will is to say God can't do something, which amounts to a denial of his omnipotence.

The father is not responsible for the sons action because the son has free will and could choose to rebel just look at the prodigal son example or Ezekiel 18.
The robot doesn’t have free will and can’t do other then what he was programmed to do therefore the robot is not responsible for his action. Just like If Calvinism is right we can’t be held responsible for our actions.

If God created man to serve and worship him, then God is responsible for allowing his creation to get out of control. If a man creates a robot and gives it no instructions but simply allows it to learn and do on its own, he is still responsible for the existence of the robot, and if that robot watches too much T.V. and becomes violent and terroristic, then the creator is responsible for that according to you.

God didn’t create man to sin, Man could’ve not sinned then sin would’ve not entered the world. He did create the freewill by which non Calvinist could show love towered God .

You hypocrite! You charge Calvinists with the same folly you fall into yourself. You do not discern the holiness and sovereignty of God, therefore you are an offense to the faith. Repent of your wickedness!
[/size]
[
That's your definition of robot? In that case, every living thing is robotic! Humans are programmed to breath, hunger, thirst, and be enjoined to all other manner of temporal effects due to our temporal nature. Not only humans, but animals and plants as well are robots because, according to the scientists, the combination of DNA that comprises the genetics of a living thing is predetermined by the progenitor of the progeny. Your definition makes this completely robotic.

Your accusation of "robot" is simply absurd because you cannot avoid the implications that it creates. Unless you presume that the earth randomly came into existence without the guiding hand of God, you must admit "robotic" elements in everything because your ridiculous apologetic requires it. Instead of pointing out a flaw in Calvinism, you only point out the core problem in your own argument: you have no idea what you are talking about.

You don’t seem to understand we don’t have control over our breathing or getting hungry but we do have control over what to eat or who to serve.

I am ashamed of fools and hypocrites who presume to speak truth of God but instead blaspheme and disgrace him.

Thus, I am done speaking to you. Your mind is thoroughly carnal. I have delivered the truth of God's word to you. I now pray that the Holy Spirit enables you to receive it. I pray that God will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh that you might believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. I pray that God faithfully reveals his counsel to you that you might be saved from the just punishment of your unrighteous and unclean thoughts toward God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

If you are really speaking by the Holy Spirit and you believe in irresistible grace then why isn’t God force his will on me so I will believe like you?
This only shows that grace is resistible and you have a choice in who to serve and what to believe.

inchristalone221

15th December 2005, 03:04 PM

What constitutes an ethically wrong action? From the Christian perspective (and not simply the Calvinist one) it would be a direct command of God against either the action or the motives. God is not subject to such commands, and therefore he cannot be accused of any ethically wrong action.

God is free to hold you accountable for your actions even if he predetermined them. Why? Because He is GOD! He is that which is! He is the just and the measure of justice!

pinkieposies

15th December 2005, 03:15 PM

You don't understand Calvinist view fully.
They don't think he just allowed things to happen but caused it to happen.
Read the verse that is being misquoted Lamentations 3:38 Jon is trying to make it say out of the mouth of the lord proceedeth evil.How can you say Calvinist don’t believe God is evil?

It's true I am still learning many things, but I have never encountered a Calvanist who ever said or implied that God is at fault for all sin and evil in the world.

I agree with Jon's argument, and I believe you are mistaken when you say that he has said that God is evil. No one here believes that. I know that for sure.

Please read this again and explain what you think this verse is actually saying. I don't see how you can argue against this.:

Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
{Lamentations 3:37-39, emphasis in verse 39 added}

Who are we to question what God does? Who are we to complain for evils that fall upon us, when they are clearly punishments and consequences for our sins?

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
{Psalm 51:4}

Randy quotes Isaiah 53 to show God fulfilled his prophesies by betraying mocking and killing Jesus. They don’t believe prophecies are foretelling the future but God is making it happen.

God did not betray, mock, or murder Christ, but He did preordain these things to happen that we might be saved through Him. Are you saying that is an evil thing? How could we be saved if that did not happen???

Our God is a good God but not from the Calvinist point of view.

Maybe it is you who does not completely understand the Calvanist point of veiw? Are you here to find understanding or to argue?

God Bless,
Erin

Jon_

15th December 2005, 03:24 PM

Sending one to prison is not an evil act. You can’t seem to see a difference between punishing one for their evil act and molesting an infant. The different translation is more correct on the translation of that verse. Please explain if from the mouth of the Lord evil comes then how can you say your God is not evil?
Evil is a tool used by God to accomplish his ends. God is not evil for he is not subject to accusation. No one may accuse God is evil, for he is completely holy. If he uses evil to achieve his own ends, the blame rests upon the soul who works the iniquity, for he has willingly transgressed the law of God, whereas God, being above the law and working all things after the counsel of his own good pleasure, is free from all blame.

You must also understand the distinction between "evil" and sin. All sins are evil, but not all that is evil is sin. We say a tsunami is evil (calamity), but there is nothing inherently sinful about a tsunami. Thus, God uses evil for his own ends, but he can never be charged as sinful, for there is no one who can make such a charge. It is God who imputes sin to those who work iniquity. Will God therefore impute sin to himself for using evil toward his own ends?
(Job 2:10 KJV) But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Have you not read how he sent the king of Assyria to destroy Israel and take the Jews into captivity? Did you not know that God purposed this evil against his people that he might chastise and punish them for their sins? God's use of evil is a product of man's own sin. He punishes iniquity, frequently using iniquity to do so. Who can fault God with this, for he is the lone Judge and just Punisher of the wicked.

Your hypobole was outstanding too. Instead of addressing the point I made (that God works evil for his own end), you simply say "there is a different between punishment and molesting an infant." What a sage and utterly irrelevant observation. I just love how you always use that example. Your rhetoric is so spiteful and full of venom that it's no surprise I lose my patience with you. Your arguments are completely irrational and you simply argue from the basis of histerical emotionalism and secular speculations of "free will."

You would do well to pray fervently for forgiveness and wisdom, and that God should be gracious and merciful to you in revealing the truth of his Scriptures to you. It's rather obvious you rarely if ever read them. The only verses you know are those ones which you twist and distort to support your wicked and unrighteous view of God.

The father is not responsible for the sons action because the son has free will and could choose to rebel just look at the prodigal son example or Ezekiel 18. The robot doesn’t have free will and can’t do other then what he was programmed to do therefore the robot is not responsible for his action. Just like If Calvinism is right we can’t be held responsible for our actions.
If by free will you mean the ability to always choose between the good and the evil, then you affirm the teaching of Pelagius, who denied that grace is necessary for redemption. He said that free will requires that we always be able to choose the good, and therefore, it is possible that one does not need grace (which helps us to do the good) in order to be saved. For your argument to be consistent, you must agree with Pelagius.

But Pelagius was a heretic and he teaches something completely contrary to the word of God.
(Romans 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
You don’t seem to understand we don’t have control over our breathing or getting hungry but we do have control over what to eat or who to serve.
You don't seem to understand that we do have control over our breathing and hunger. We can choose to remain hungry or we can eat something. We can choose to stop breathing and start again when we've turned blue in the face. We can choose to live or choose to die, but die we will. Your counter-argument does not answer the charge. There are an untold number of circumstances in our lives that are not the result of our choices. We don't choose when we live or when we die. We don't choose what race we are born into, nor social class, nor our skills, abilities, or intelligence. We do not choose if we are blind, deaf, or mute. We do not choose if we become sick, if we are struck by lightning, etc. For your free will hogwash to hold water, God must allow us to have univocal choice regarding all things. Anytime God allows lightning to strike us without giving us a choice to obey (and get struck) or disobey (and not get struck), he is violating the concept of "free will."

Your "common sense" argument is nothing but a bunch of impious, blasphemous nonsense. It is utterly unbiblical and unchristian. Therefore, repent of your sin.

If you are really speaking by the Holy Spirit and you believe in irresistible grace then why isn’t God force his will on me so I will believe like you? This only shows that grace is resistible and you have a choice in who to serve and what to believe.
Obviously because God is not (yet) willing that you should come to the knowledge of the truth, for which I praise his glorious wisdom. For he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will harden whom he will harden (Rom. 9:16).

If he willed your understanding, you would understand. For it is written:
(Is. 14:24 KJV) The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.

(Is. 55:11 KJV) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
But because you do not believe, the following verses are applicable:
(John 8:43 KJV) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

(John 6:63 KJV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

(1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(Romans 8:7 KJV) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

(John 10:26 KJV) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

(John 12:40 KJV) 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.

(Romans 9:19, 20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Bob Moore

15th December 2005, 04:55 PM

You don't understand Calvinist view fully.

And you do? :D

They don't think he just allowed things to happen but caused it to happen.

While it is true that nothing whatever happens anywhere in the universe without the permission of God, that is a far cry from claiming that God directly causes all things. In the affairs of men God, knowing all things about all men, uses His knowledge in the realm of providence to effect His ends. All men, even the redeemed, can and do sin. The sin that an unredeemed man does is a result of his depraved nature. He can do nothing else. In fact everything he does is sinful because his motives are not right before God. The sin that a redeemed man does is simply evidence that we are not yet perfected. Even Paul battled against sin all his life after redemption. He lamented: Romans 7:14-20, For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So please let us have no more of this foolishness claiming that Calvinists attribute sin to God.

Our God is a good God but not from the Calvinist point of view.

Rubbish. The vast majority of Calvinists have a very high view of God and His holiness. We know that in Him there is no sin, no shadow of turning, no unrighteousness, and no injustice. Those who attribute to God the foibles of men err gravely.

Bob Moore

15th December 2005, 05:20 PM

If you are really speaking by the Holy Spirit and you believe in irresistible grace then why isn’t God force his will on me so I will believe like you?
This only shows that grace is resistible and you have a choice in who to serve and what to believe.

What it shows is that you do not understand grace.

Apart from the gift of saving faith all men are lost. But when the Spirit calls a man (Ephesians 2:8-9) He imparts several things. The ability to believe salvifically, the desire and ability to know God and do the things that are pleasing to Him, a genuine sorrow over previous sin (Psalm 51:17), and so forth. There are a great many men who know about God, but do not know God.

What appears to you to be resistable appears that way only because you put men above God in power. God already knows every single person He has given to His Son:
Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,...

Which certainly explains:

John 10:27-30, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Some are not born yet, but God knows them anyway. Many more will be called, but have not been---yet. But there are a very great many more who are not elect, even if they think they are. Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

and

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

God does not force belief. He changes the corrupt nature (or fallen will) to enable it, and once He does that the man will, without fail, answer the call. But without the effectual call a man can know as much about God as he likes, but he can never know God.

seekingpurity047

15th December 2005, 07:21 PM

Randy quotes Isaiah 53 to show God fulfilled his prophesies by betraying mocking and killing Jesus. They don’t believe prophecies are foretelling the future but God is making it happen.

Wait a second here... are you trying to say that God did not intend for Jesus to be mocked and betrayed and murdered for the sins of all those who believe in Him? Are you trying to say that God essentially doesn't have a plan for the world? Are you trying to say that everything is essentially no holds barred, and anything goes, for God isn't in control? If all this is true... then you deny scripture, for it says, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130j)] who[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130k)] have been called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28). Now, if it is true that ALL things God WORKS for the good of those who love Him... then how can He not be in control? I'd like to know that one....

Another thing... allow us to umm... examine Rom. 8:29

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Clearly, you have a problem with the word foreknew. So, let's look in the greek, for our translations of the bible are fallible, whereas the original text in greek cannot be.

Proginosko....

to have knowledge before hand
to foreknow
of those whom God elected to salvation

to predestinate

To analyze this further, allow us to observe other instances that the word is used. Rom. 11:1-7

1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28198a)]? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28199b)] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28201c)]

Now, what can this foreknowledge mean? Obviously, it isn't the knowledge that Israel would be his people conditionally. Just think about it, if it really did depend on conditions, then what part does God play at all? Allow me to illustrate.

If God did not predestine Israel, Israel wouldn't exist. Why, you ask? Well, what about the times that God acted to help Israel? Would Israel had gotten out of Egypt without God? Well... no, obviously not.

A question, since you believe in the improper view of foreknowledge: Does God have foreknowledge of the decisions that He makes? If so, then He predestines the decisions that He makes, and His foreknowledge is not the sort of foreknowledge that you believe.

In Romans 8:29, the foreknowledge that Paul is speaking about, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the foreknowledge that He knows who are His elect. Not based upon the actions that we do, not based upon conditions, for Rom. 11:2 may say this "God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." And His people is Israel. You must also realize that, not all Israel is Israel (Rom. 9:6), but there is a Spiritual Israel, God's elect, notably.

So, God's prophecies are not a matter of foreknowledge, but a matter of plan. God had a plan from the get go. God makes decisions, He doesn't just let things happen randomly. Think about it.

To the glory of God,

Randy

orthedoxy

15th December 2005, 10:02 PM

Bob
There are too many people asking questions. You seem the more inelegant and mature one among them. So let me ask you a question

Lamentations 3:37
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Would you say according to that verse God is evil?
Would you agree with Jon that God is evil but not sinful because not everything that is evil is sinful?

And you do? :D

While it is true that nothing whatever happens anywhere in the universe without the permission of God, that is a far cry from claiming that God directly causes all things. In the affairs of men God, knowing all things about all men, uses His knowledge in the realm of providence to effect His ends.

Please explain: how does God ordain an evil act(if you believe he does)?

All men, even the redeemed, can and do sin. The sin that an unredeemed man does is a result of his depraved nature. He can do nothing else. In fact everything he does is sinful because his motives are not right before God. The sin that a redeemed man does is simply evidence that we are not yet perfected. Even Paul battled against sin all his life after redemption. He lamented: Romans 7:14-20, For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So please let us have no more of this foolishness claiming that Calvinists attribute sin to God.

Rubbish. The vast majority

of Calvinists have a very high view of God and His holiness. We know that in Him there is no sin, no shadow of turning, no unrighteousness, and no injustice. Those who attribute to God the foibles of men err gravely.

Do the redeemed resist the Holy Spirit, that's why they sin?
Is it God's will that we sin?

Jon_

15th December 2005, 10:18 PM

Would you agree with Jon that God is evil but not sinful because not everything that is evil is sinful?
I didn't say this. Quit misrepresenting me you iniquitous, impious, deceiver.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

edb19

15th December 2005, 10:33 PM

I didn't say this. Quit misrepresenting me you iniquitous, impious, deceiver.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I couldn't figure out how he got that idea from your posts either Jon. Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

edie

Jon_

15th December 2005, 11:04 PM

I couldn't figure out how he got that idea from your posts either Jon. Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

edie
In fact, I said precisely the opposite:

God is not evil for he is not subject to accusation. No one may accuse God is evil, for he is completely holy.

Ref. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20671646&postcount=35

We now add lying to the rap sheet of sins our antagonist has committed in this thread.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

orthedoxy

19th December 2005, 03:25 PM

You must also understand the distinction between "evil" and sin. All sins are evil, but not all that is evil is sin. We say a tsunami is evil (calamity), but there is nothing inherently sinful about a tsunami. Thus, God uses evil for his own ends, but he can never be charged as sinful, for there is no one who can make such a charge. It is God who imputes sin to those who work iniquity. Will God therefore impute sin to himself for using evil toward his own ends?
(Job 2:10 KJV) But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

You say tsunami is evil and God caused it so how is your God not evil?
The only thing you are saying he can be evil but not sinful. How have I lied about what you have said?
You also quote Lamentation 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
You are quoting this verse to show God is evil right? If out of the mouth of God proceeds evil how can he not be evil?

Have you not read how he sent the king of Assyria to destroy Israel and take the Jews into captivity? Did you not know that God purposed this evil against his people that he might chastise and punish them for their sins? God's use of evil is a product of man's own sin. He punishes iniquity, frequently using iniquity to do so. Who can fault God with this, for he is the lone Judge and just Punisher of the wicked.

Your hypobole was outstanding too. Instead of addressing the point I made (that God works evil for his own end), you simply say "there is a different between punishment and molesting an infant." What a sage and utterly irrelevant observation. I just love how you always use that example. Your rhetoric is so spiteful and full of venom that it's no surprise I lose my patience with you. Your arguments are completely irrational and you simply argue from the basis of histerical emotionalism and secular speculations of "free will."

You would do well to pray fervently for forgiveness and wisdom, and that God should be gracious and merciful to you in revealing the truth of his Scriptures to you. It's rather obvious you rarely if ever read them. The only verses you know are those ones which you twist and distort to support your wicked and unrighteous view of God.

If by free will you mean the ability to always choose between the good and the evil, then you affirm the teaching of Pelagius, who denied that grace is necessary for redemption. He said that free will requires that we always be able to choose the good, and therefore, it is possible that one does not need grace (which helps us to do the good) in order to be saved. For your argument to be consistent, you must agree with Pelagius.

But Pelagius was a heretic and he teaches something completely contrary to the word of God.
(Romans 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It's funny that you only see Pelagious as a heretic. The Catholic Church condemned the faith alone, bible alone and many other things as heresy. You apparently don't understand what Pelagious and I'm not going to teach you not today.
Calvin was considered a heretic according to the Catholic Church why are you only worried about Pelagious?

You don't seem to understand that we do have control over our breathing and hunger. We can choose to remain hungry or we can eat something. We can choose to stop breathing and start again when we've turned blue in the face. We can choose to live or choose to die, but die we will. Your counter-argument does not answer the charge. There are an untold number of circumstances in our lives that are not the result of our choices. We don't choose when we live or when we die. We don't choose what race we are born into, nor social class, nor our skills, abilities, or intelligence. We do not choose if we are blind, deaf, or mute. We do not choose if we become sick, if we are struck by lightning, etc. For your free will hogwash to hold water, God must allow us to have univocal choice regarding all things. Anytime God allows lightning to strike us without giving us a choice to obey (and get struck) or disobey (and not get struck), he is violating the concept of "free will."

Your "common sense" argument is nothing but a bunch of impious, blasphemous nonsense. It is utterly unbiblical and unchristian. Therefore, repent of your sin.

Obviously because God is not (yet) willing that you should come to the knowledge of the truth, for which I praise his glorious wisdom. For he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will harden whom he will harden (Rom. 9:16).

If he willed your understanding, you would understand. For it is written:
(Is. 14:24 KJV) The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.

(Is. 55:11 KJV) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
But because you do not believe, the following verses are applicable:
(John 8:43 KJV) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

(John 6:63 KJV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

(1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(Romans 8:7 KJV) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

(John 10:26 KJV) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

(John 12:40 KJV) 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.

(Romans 9:19, 20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
You can't choose what race to be born or the feeling that you get hungry and the gender. I agree with that, are you saying you can't choose what to eat? I have a choice to go to Jack in the box or go to Subway so how can you say I don't have free will in choosing?

Jon_

19th December 2005, 04:49 PM

You say tsunami is evil and God caused it so how is your God not evil?
Are you serious? God causing a tsunami does not make him evil in the same way that you making a ham sandwich makes you sliced bread. What terrible logic.

The only thing you are saying he can be evil but not sinful. How have I lied about what you have said?
I never said, "he can be evil," liar.

You also quote Lamentation 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? You are quoting this verse to show God is evil right? If out of the mouth of God proceeds evil how can he not be evil?
I quote this verse to show that God creates and uses evil for his own purposes.

It's funny that you only see Pelagious as a heretic.
It's spelled Pelagius, and he's not the only person I consider a heretic.

The Catholic Church condemned the faith alone, bible alone and many other things as heresy. You apparently don't understand what Pelagious and I'm not going to teach you not today. Calvin was considered a heretic according to the Catholic Church why are you only worried about Pelagious?
This whole section of your response is magnificently off-topic. I described Pelagius as a heretic because his teaching clearly contradicts the Scriptures. You clearly have a bias regarding the word "heretic" that leads you to think church councils have something to do with the assignment thereof.

You can't choose what race to be born or the feeling that you get hungry and the gender. I agree with that, are you saying you can't choose what to eat? I have a choice to go to Jack in the box or go to Subway so how can you say I don't have free will in choosing?
Amazing. You freely admit that there are a number of things about your life that you don't have any choice over, but you cling to fast-food as somehow being the essential proof of free will.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

inchristalone221

19th December 2005, 04:49 PM

You can't choose what race to be born or the feeling that you get hungry and the gender. I agree with that, are you saying you can't choose what to eat? I have a choice to go to Jack in the box or go to Subway so how can you say I don't have free will in choosing?

I suppose that analogy might work if you factored in having a nature that is totally opposed to one restaurant or the other. Your will is not "free", it is enslaved to sin. You freely make the choice you cannot help but make (that is, rejecting the things of God) unless God intentionally regenerates you through his spirit.

inchristalone221

19th December 2005, 05:06 PM

You also quote Lamentation 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? You are quoting this verse to show God is evil right? If out of the mouth of God proceeds evil how can he not be evil?

I believe Lamentations 3:38 is more along the lines of a good parallel for Ecclesiastes 7:14...

In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.

So, as Jon said, God creates and uses evil for His purposes.

Bob Moore

19th December 2005, 05:30 PM

This is slightly off topic, sorry. I hate it when posts that deserve reputation points can't get them until I search all over the site to 'spread it around'. I can, in a way, see why it is like that, but it hinders recognition of solid presentations. I don't see why there is an artificial limitation (it used to be 10, now it's 20) before you can recognize the same person again. It is exactly the same thing as if the National Football League recognized only one touchdown in 20 pending other teams scoring 19.

Jon_

19th December 2005, 05:41 PM

inchristalone221

19th December 2005, 06:03 PM

Well, we have to be ecumenically minded, don't we?

HAHA! Now now, let's all be tolerant.

Bob Moore

19th December 2005, 09:29 PM

Well, we have to be ecumenically minded, don't we? :sorry:

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

;) Well, that is the nature of this place, isn't it?

Bob Moore

19th December 2005, 09:39 PM

HAHA! Now now, let's all be tolerant.

Why sure, let's tolerate everything until there is nothing left worth standing for. I know you are tongue in cheek with this, but I am going to carry it out to it's logical conclusion.

Let us excuse murder because the killer had a "bad childhood experience".

Let us excuse robbery because the robber "was deprived as a child".

Let us excuse child abuse because "I was abused as a child".

Let us excuse theft because there are others more productive, and that "isn't fair".

Hogwash.

That is the so-called wisdom that the world throws at us every day. But there is not a grain of truth in it.

Jon_

19th December 2005, 09:58 PM

Why sure, let's tolerate everything until there is nothing left worth standing for. I know you are tongue in cheek with this, but I am going to carry it out to it's logical conclusion.

Let us excuse murder because the killer had a "bad childhood experience".

Let us excuse robbery because the robber "was deprived as a child".

Let us excuse child abuse because "I was abused as a child".

Let us excuse theft because there are others more productive, and that "isn't fair".

Hogwash.

That is the so-called wisdom that the world throws at us every day. But there is not a grain of truth in it.
:amen: and :amen:
(1 Corinthians 1:18-29 KJV) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

McWilliams

19th December 2005, 10:17 PM

HAHA! Now now, let's all be tolerant.

Tolerant, yes. Ecumenical, NO!

McWilliams

19th December 2005, 10:32 PM

Well now, please forgive my stray post and comment!
When I see those words, 'Ecumenical' and 'tolerant' my anxiety level soars! I posted impulsively before going back to read all the history prior to such words!:blush:

inchristalone221

19th December 2005, 11:07 PM

HAHA! Sorry if I was misunderstood. When I said "let's be tolerant" I was making a mockery of the idea. It was a failed attempt to convey sarcasm without tone of voice =P

orthedoxy

20th December 2005, 08:25 PM

Are you serious? God causing a tsunami does not make him evil in the same way that you making a ham sandwich makes you sliced bread. What terrible logic.

You are saying tsunami is evil God caused tsunami, yet he is not evil.
That's like saying you molest kids but you are not a child molester.
When you make a sandwich makes you the sandwich maker not the slice of bread, so stop trying to make a lame analogy and deal with what you are saying.

I never said, "he can be evil," liar.

You are when you claim tsunami is evil and God is the cause of it or when you say out of the mouth of the Lord comes evil.

I quote this verse to show that God creates and uses evil for his own purposes.

This verse doesn't say God creates and uses evil for his own purposes. It says out of the mouth of the Lord comes evil, wheich makes him evil.

It's spelled Pelagius, and he's not the only person I consider a heretic.

If you look on google you will see it's spelled both ways, it seems like you are trying to impress people by your spelling.

This whole section of your response is magnificently off-topic. I described Pelagius as a heretic because his teaching clearly contradicts the Scriptures. You clearly have a bias regarding the word "heretic" that leads you to think church councils have something to do with the assignment thereof.

This is not why pelagius considered to be heretic but because he departed from the established teaching of the Church. It's hypocrisy to say he was a heretic and not consider Calvin to be the same.
You are wrong in assuming whoever doesn't believe the bible the way you do is a heretic.

Amazing. You freely admit that there are a number of things about your life that you don't have any choice over, but you cling to fast-food as somehow being the essential proof of free will.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
Don't you see free will in where to eat?
If the act of eating is free then so is salvation according to this verse.

John 6: 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Jon_

20th December 2005, 08:52 PM

You are saying tsunami is evil God caused tsunami, yet he is not evil. That's like saying you molest kids but you are not a child molester.
When you make a sandwich makes you the sandwich maker not the slice of bread, so stop trying to make a lame analogy and deal with what you are saying.
For crying out loud.

You've got a tsunami. Tsunamis are evil. You've got a ham sandwich. Ham sandwiches have bread. God causes a tsunami. This makes God a tsunami-maker, not evil! You make a ham sandwich. This makes you a sandwich-maker, not sliced bread!

Anyway, I'm finished with this topic for now.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Bob Moore

20th December 2005, 11:43 PM

Observation:

Some who post here have neither knowlege nor the wish to acquire it.

Just as Jesus let the rich young ruler walk away (Mark 10 and Luke 18) so I think we ought to let today's equivalent walk away.

Jon_

21st December 2005, 10:11 AM

orthedoxy

23rd December 2005, 04:27 PM

Why do you guys give such a lame excuse This is a forum where people ask questions and you give answers if you don't have answers don't give me a lame excuse.

Rolf Ernst

23rd December 2005, 05:45 PM

To what do you need an answer, orthodoxy?

Jon_

23rd December 2005, 06:42 PM

Why do you guys give such a lame excuse This is a forum where people ask questions and you give answers if you don't have answers don't give me a lame excuse.
Lame excuse, eh? Here are three crippling reasons why your definition of free will cannot possibly be true and why God's holiness is not violated even though he creates/uses evil. This will be the last word I have to say on the matter, so you can spare us all a response. The only reason I post now is for the edification of others, that they might use these same arguments to silence other such deceitful, impious, humanistic outbursts.

Please pay attention to these arguments. You wanted clear, concise answers, and I will give them to you now. Take care to understand them because I won't repeat them and I won't answer any objections. With this post, my obligation is fulfilled. If you yet reject the sovereignty of God, your error is your own and you will be called to give an account for your disobedience.

Objection One

God is omniscient. He knows everything past, present, and future. God is immutable. His divine nature never changes. Therefore, God always has and always will know everything past, present, and future. Because God knows it, it must come to pass, otherwise God could not know it. For example, God knew Christ would be crucified.

God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do. Because God knows all things and can do all things, it follows that God did not want to spare Christ from being crucified.

God is the Creator. God, through his Son, created all things, and nothing exists that was not created by him. Because God created all things, and knows all things, it follows that he knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway. And since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Judas from betraying Christ, but he didn't.

Therefore, God knew Christ would be betrayed by Judas. God always knew Judas would betray Christ. God knew it before he even created Judas. Therefore, because God knew it, Judas could not have chosen otherwise! If God knew that Judas would betray Christ before Judas was even born, then it follows that Judas had to betray Christ, otherwise God would either (1) not be omniscient or (2) be a liar, and thus, sinful.

Objection Two

God is not evil because he is righteous and holy. Since God is immutably righteous and holy, he can never be evil. I will now show why God is not evil even though he uses evil and sin to accomplish his will.

You say that God causing evil makes him evil. This is a fallacy of composition that will be demonstrated. I will also show that God cannot sin because he is the Lawgiver and Judge and not subject to sin, for he is above the law.

Evil is the opposite of good. God is good; therefore, he cannot be evil. But God has ordained things that we consider evil, such as killing (1 Chron. 10:14), deceiption (1 Kings 22:22), and the infliction of harm (Job 2:4-6). How can this be? It is very simple. God ordains these things to accomplish his purposes, which are always good. God's intentions for using evil to accomplish his sovereign plan are totally righteous; therefore, he is not evil for doing so. When his creatures work evil, they sin because they have not obeyed God. God requires that they do good and not evil. When God ordains that evil should happen, it is not evil for him to do so, but it is evil for the man to do it because he is forbidden by the law of God to commit evil acts.

You will then object that this just makes men robots. This is a silly, emotional outburst, completely void of any substance. Men are not robots because they are rational, volitional beings made in the image of God. Robots are none of these things. More to the point, God does not hold robots responsible for their actions; therefore, they cannot sin. Sin is the willful transgression of God's law. God's law only applies to mankind. God is not subject to his own law. He is above it. Because God is the omnipotent Creator, he is free to require men to obey his law. If men to not obey his law, he is free to punish them for it.

We see now that God cannot be sinful because he never imputes sin to himself. He is above the law, so he can never transgress against it. Men are subject to the law, though. If they transgress the law, they have sinned. Therefore, when God ordains evil for his own purposes, he does not sin. When God uses the evil that men do to accomplish his own purposes, he imputes sin to them for their transgression of his commandments.

God created Judas for the purpose of betraying Christ to the Pharisees. It can be said that God caused Judas to betray Christ because, since God is the Creator of all things and is omniscient, he knew that Judas would betray Christ, but made him anyway. From this it follows that God knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway, because he wanted Judas to betray Christ. We know this because God does whatever he desires (see Job 23:13, Psalms 115:3; 135:6). Since God created Judas knowing that Judas would betray Christ, it follows that he desired Judas to betray Christ.

And also, as I have already discussed, doing evil and being evil do not go hand in hand. For instance, you have a ham sandwich. A ham sandwich is made from ham, mayo, lettuce, and bread. If you make a ham sandwich, you are a ham sandwich-maker, not a piece of bread. The same goes for evil actions. Evil is a property of something else. It is impossible to do "evil" by itself. You must do something and it must be done in an evil way. For instance, killing is not in itself evil. An evil killing is murder, but not all killing is murderous. This same dynamic applies to everything God does, except the property of evil never attaches to anything God does because nothing he does is evil. The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil. And, of course, since God is completely holy, he never declares that anything he does is evil.

Objection Three

You say that if God causes evil, then he is evil, thus, the only way to avoid this is to say man has free will. It has already been shown that (1) God is not evil even if he causes it and (2) that man does not have free will. I will now demonstrate that your free will argument does not avoid making God the ultimate cause of the evil men cause.

A lifeguard is on duty and he gets a call that there are rip tides off the beach that have been pulling people out to see. He is told that he should get everyone out of the water because they could be pulled out to sea if they are not strong enough to swim out of the rip tides. So, the lifeguard calls this out over the megaphone. Some of the people who hear get out of the water. Some of them don't hear at all. Some of them hear, but ignore him. Now, there are still many people in the water. The lifeguard continues to shout over his megaphone, but they are not hearing him or are ignoring him. The lifeguard then notices a small child being pulled out to sea. He is now frantic. He starts screaming over the megaphone for the child to get out of the water. He is a very strong swimmer and he could surely jump into the water and save the child. But he doesn't. He simply stays on his tower and shouts throught he megaphone. As a result, the child drowns. The lifeguard is clearly responsible for allowing the child to drown. He could have saved him, but he did not.

Another example is that of the person who wanted to commit suicide. He was standing on a bridge threatening to jump. A police officer was there trying to talk the person out of jumping. The person trusted him enough to get right up next to him. The whole time the police officer is saying, "Now, if you want to jump, I'm not going to force you not to because that would be interferring with your free will. But I really don't want you to jump. If you will just reach out your hand to me, I will help you get down." The police officer talks to the man some more, but the man is very distraught. After a few minutes, the man declares that he is going to jump, counts down... 3! 2! 1! and then jumps. The police officer does nothing. Clearly, the police officer is responsible for not pulling the man down by force. His appeal to "free will" here would be nothing more than an excuse for his apathy toward suicidal man. He should have saved him, but he did not.

The examples here are many. Needless to say, you don't escape any responsibility by appealing to "free will." It is nothing but obstreperous human pride and carnal hatred of God's sovereignty that cause men to appeal to free will.

Think this isn't fair? Tough. You were made for God's pleasure and he will do with you whatever he wants. He doesn't need your permission and it doesn't matter if you accept it or not. He is God Almighty and he will do whatsoever he has purposed. If you don't like it then that's too bad. From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. You are nothing but clay in the Potter's hand. As the Lord of hosts has declared, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me" (Job 38:2, 3 NIV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Bob Moore

23rd December 2005, 07:12 PM

Excellent, jon_, thank you.

inchristalone221

23rd December 2005, 07:18 PM

AMEN! THAT WAS JUST TOP-NOTCH! You mind if I save that and quote it?

cygnusx1

23rd December 2005, 07:34 PM

Amazing. You freely admit that there are a number of things about your life that you don't have any choice over, but you cling to fast-food as somehow being the essential proof of free will.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

:D :D :D I sure hope the rep button works !! .................. this thread is great , I am glad I am not on the receiving end of your sword Jon :P :wave:

cygnusx1

23rd December 2005, 07:47 PM

Lame excuse, eh? Here are three crippling reasons why your definition of free will cannot possibly be true and why God's holiness is not violated even though he creates/uses evil. This will be the last word I have to say on the matter, so you can spare us all a response. The only reason I post now is for the edification of others, that they might use these same arguments to silence other such deceitful, impious, humanistic outbursts.

Please pay attention to these arguments. You wanted clear, concise answers, and I will give them to you now. Take care to understand them because I won't repeat them and I won't answer any objections. With this post, my obligation is fulfilled. If you yet reject the sovereignty of God, your error is your own and you will be called to give an account for your disobedience.

Objection One

God is omniscient. He knows everything past, present, and future. God is immutable. His divine nature never changes. Therefore, God always has and always will know everything past, present, and future. Because God knows it, it must come to pass, otherwise God could not know it. For example, God knew Christ would be crucified.

God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do. Because God knows all things and can do all things, it follows that God did not want to spare Christ from being crucified.

God is the Creator. God, through his Son, created all things, and nothing exists that was not created by him. Because God created all things, and knows all things, it follows that he knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway. And since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Judas from betraying Christ, but he didn't.

Therefore, God knew Christ would be betrayed by Judas. God always knew Judas would betray Christ. God knew it before he even created Judas. Therefore, because God knew it, Judas could not have chosen otherwise! If God knew that Judas would betray Christ before Judas was even born, then it follows that Judas had to betray Christ, otherwise God would either (1) not be omniscient or (2) be a liar, and thus, sinful.

Objection Two

God is not evil because he is righteous and holy. Since God is immutably righteous and holy, he can never be evil. I will now show why God is not evil even though he uses evil and sin to accomplish his will.

You say that God causing evil makes him evil. This is a fallacy of composition that will be demonstrated. I will also show that God cannot sin because he is the Lawgiver and Judge and not subject to sin, for he is above the law.

Evil is the opposite of good. God is good; therefore, he cannot be evil. But God has ordained things that we consider evil, such as killing (1 Chron. 10:14), deceiption (1 Kings 22:22), and the infliction of harm (Job 2:4-6). How can this be? It is very simple. God ordains these things to accomplish his purposes, which are always good. God's intentions for using evil to accomplish his sovereign plan are totally righteous; therefore, he is not evil for doing so. When his creatures work evil, they sin because they have not obeyed God. God requires that they do good and not evil. When God ordains that evil should happen, it is not evil for him to do so, but it is evil for the man to do it because he is forbidden by the law of God to commit evil acts.

You will then object that this just makes men robots. This is a silly, emotional outburst, completely void of any substance. Men are not robots because they are rational, volitional beings made in the image of God. Robots are none of these things. More to the point, God does not hold robots responsible for their actions; therefore, they cannot sin. Sin is the willful transgression of God's law. God's law only applies to mankind. God is not subject to his own law. He is above it. Because God is the omnipotent Creator, he is free to require men to obey his law. If men to not obey his law, he is free to punish them for it.

We see now that God cannot be sinful because he never imputes sin to himself. He is above the law, so he can never transgress against it. Men are subject to the law, though. If they transgress the law, they have sinned. Therefore, when God ordains evil for his own purposes, he does not sin. When God uses the evil that men do to accomplish his own purposes, he imputes sin to them for their transgression of his commandments.

God created Judas for the purpose of betraying Christ to the Pharisees. It can be said that God caused Judas to betray Christ because, since God is the Creator of all things and is omniscient, he knew that Judas would betray Christ, but made him anyway. From this it follows that God knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway, because he wanted Judas to betray Christ. We know this because God does whatever he desires (see Job 23:13, Psalms 115:3; 135:6). Since God created Judas knowing that Judas would betray Christ, it follows that he desired Judas to betray Christ.

And also, as I have already discussed, doing evil and being evil do not go hand in hand. For instance, you have a ham sandwich. A ham sandwich is made from ham, mayo, lettuce, and bread. If you make a ham sandwich, you are a ham sandwich-maker, not a piece of bread. The same goes for evil actions. Evil is a property of something else. It is impossible to do "evil" by itself. You must do something and it must be done in an evil way. For instance, killing is not in itself evil. An evil killing is murder, but not all killing is murderous. This same dynamic applies to everything God does, except the property of evil never attaches to anything God does because nothing he does is evil. The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil. And, of course, since God is completely holy, he never declares that anything he does is evil.

Objection Three

You say that if God causes evil, then he is evil, thus, the only way to avoid this is to say man has free will. It has already been shown that (1) God is not evil even if he causes it and (2) that man does not have free will. I will now demonstrate that your free will argument does not avoid making God the ultimate cause of the evil men cause.

A lifeguard is on duty and he gets a call that there are rip tides off the beach that have been pulling people out to see. He is told that he should get everyone out of the water because they could be pulled out to sea if they are not strong enough to swim out of the rip tides. So, the lifeguard calls this out over the megaphone. Some of the people who hear get out of the water. Some of them don't hear at all. Some of them hear, but ignore him. Now, there are still many pe