 |
| 
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/26/2004 3:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Do you recognize how silly the charge is that use of certain words renders the use a subscriber to a philosophical view called determinism?
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Rather, it is a confident reposing in the trustworthy arms of God who purposes all things and effectively brings all things to pass and does it well.
So God,
1. purposing all things
2. effectively bringing all things to pass
3. doing it well
isn't determinism?
Laika,
Difficult as it is for you to believe it, what I have affirmed as my own belief is not determinism.
To say--"Rather, it is a confident reposing in the trustworthy arms of God who purposes all things and effectively brings all things to pass and does it well."--is not to affirm determinism which is a philosophical doctrine quite different from the Christian doctrine I affirm. I affirm resolute belief in the personal God of the Bible. Determinism is not a theological doctrine; it is a philosophical doctrine that does not embrace the personal God of Scripture.
Carefully observe the language of my statement concerning the personal God who has revealed himself in Scripture. This is radically different from the mechanistic view of God bound up in determinism, a philosophical doctrine.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/26/2004 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Difficult as it is for you to believe it, what I have affirmed as my own belief is not determinism.
To say--"Rather, it is a confident reposing in the trustworthy arms of God who purposes all things and effectively brings all things to pass and does it well."--is not to affirm determinism which is a philosophical doctrine quite different from the Christian doctrine I affirm.
So "purposing" [planning] all things and then carrying all things out to successful completion is not determinism.
How is it different from "determining" and carrying all things out to successful completion?
Laika,
I'm about to head out the door, so I'm rushed. But I didn't want to leave you hanging for the day.
I have already addressed your question in my extended note above in which I demonstrate the need to distinguish between determinism, which is a philosophical doctrine, and the use of the Bible's terminology, such as, determine and predetermine. I think my discussion above is entirely sufficient to address your question. But for the sake of reiteration, because determinism is a term that has a definite referent, namely a philosophical school of thought, Calvinists (except for some who unwisely choose otherwise) do not identify their theological belief as determinism. To use the words determinism , deterministic, and determinists to describe Calvinism's belief concerning God's foreordination of all things and those who embrace this belief is to create profound confusion, the kind of confusion you and others routinely engage in throughout this discussion board. 
Surely you recognize the word fallacy I addressed in my response to Tom. Don't you? I have to believe you understand. 
Got to go.
Gerry. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 5/26/2004 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Gary Asserts,
“Now, simply because we Calvinists use biblical language, such as, predetermine, determine, foreordain, etc. hardly means that our use of these terms renders us deterministic, which is to say, subscribers to determinism. The fact that deterministic and determinism derive from and are built upon the same linguistic root as the words predetermine or determine hardly means that they share the same conceptual root or that they share the same philosophical root. Such notions are unfounded and silly.”
Tiggers’ Reply,
Ok, so I see that you’re playing with the words a bit here; nevertheless, I feel this is unnecessary. You see, I believe we can all see the distinction between philosophical determinism & theological determinism. Now, tell me if I’m wrong here, but your theological determinism (i.e. “determinism” from your biblically linguistic Calvinistic interpretation) simply proclaims that God purposes all things & therefore, brings all things to pass. Now, philosophical determinism leaves out God & replaces God with mere impersonal “antecedent states of affairs” thus, is very anti-Calvinistic or we might as well assert very anti-Christian.
On the real, Gary! I see how you don’t like the mere philosophical definition, but in the end whether determinism happens by antecedent states of affairs, or by God’s purposing all things it still all boils down to just one thing, i.e., NO FREE WILL in at least the libertarian sense. If you hold to this…well that’s cool, but in the end, TO ME, that
1) God is all powerful (i.e. integrating your all purposing in #1)
2) God is all loving
3) God is omniscient (i.e. from a traditional sense)
4) If an all all powerful, loving, & omniscient God exists then the world would not contain evil.
5) The world contains evil.
6) Therefore God does not exist.
Well, it’s this or God existed but is now dead, evil, or not all powerful (i.e. equating an all controlling interpretation of this power); furthermore I don’t see how the traditional Christian God could be a loving God because an all loving, all powerful God would not have to use deplorable means to achieve her/his ends.
Now, you could argue for theological compatibilism (i.e. theological soft determinism), but is this what you, Gary, would hold to (i.e. theological compatibilism)?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/26/2004 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tiggers
Gary Asserts,
“Now, simply because we Calvinists use biblical language, such as, predetermine, determine, foreordain, etc. hardly means that our use of these terms renders us deterministic, which is to say, subscribers to determinism. The fact that deterministic and determinism derive from and are built upon the same linguistic root as the words predetermine or determine hardly means that they share the same conceptual root or that they share the same philosophical root. Such notions are unfounded and silly.”
Tiggers’ Reply,
Ok, so I see that you’re playing with the words a bit here; nevertheless, I feel this is unnecessary. You see, I believe we can all see the distinction between philosophical determinism & theological determinism. Now, tell me if I’m wrong here, but your theological determinism (i.e. “determinism” from your biblically linguistic Calvinistic interpretation) simply proclaims that God purposes all things & therefore, brings all things to pass. Now, philosophical determinism leaves out God & replaces God with mere impersonal “antecedent states of affairs” thus, is very anti-Calvinistic or we might as well assert very anti-Christian.
On the real, Gary! I see how you don’t like the mere philosophical definition, but in the end whether determinism happens by antecedent states of affairs, or by God’s purposing all things it still all boils down to just one thing, i.e., NO FREE WILL in at least the libertarian sense. If you hold to this…well that’s cool, but in the end, TO ME, that
1) God is all powerful (i.e. integrating your all purposing in #1)
2) God is all loving
3) God is omniscient (i.e. from a traditional sense)
4) If an all all powerful, loving, & omniscient God exists then the world would not contain evil.
5) The world contains evil.
6) Therefore God does not exist.
Well, it’s this or God existed but is now dead, evil, or not all powerful (i.e. equating an all controlling interpretation of this power); furthermore I don’t see how the traditional Christian God could be a loving God because an all loving, all powerful God would not have to use deplorable means to achieve her/his ends.
Now, you could argue for theological compatibilism (i.e. theological soft determinism), but is this what you, Gary, would hold to (i.e. theological compatibilism)?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
Tiggers,
The name is Gerry, not Gary. 
The God who has revealed himself in the Bible, his own Word, will not be reduced to your syllogism. And I'm not going to try to convince you of the truth of my statement. A geezer's future is too short for me to burn up time trying to convince someone against one's will (free will, if you wish). Observe carefully that I did not say that it would be time poorly spent trying to convince someone who is predetermined to stand opposed to correction. Since no human can know such a thing, it would be wicked to say that. God alone knows that. Because I am a creature (sentient, though some wish to dispute this), I can only say the former and not the latter. Because I am a creature, I must weigh my decisions (free decisions, if you wish). So I engage wisely and not foolishly in conversations that will be effective and not a waste of God's precious gift of time. (Which implies nothing of your personal worth.)
This is the way a Calvinist lives and conducts one's life--planning, deciding, choosing, praying, consulting, acting. Why do Calvinists do all these things that entail human willing?
It is because God has appointed that our willing bears real significance within his creation purposes.
It is because we live in a world that God has ordered to function by way of means that lead to an end. Decisions have ordered consequences. Actions have observable outcomes. Causes have anticipated effects.
It is because God made us after his likeness to think, to reason, to plan, to anticipate, to act, to create, all, of course, in a derived or creaturely sense.
It is because God has purposed that his purposes should be brought to fruition in large measure through those whom he formed in his likeness. (All this entails compatibility of God's sovereign foreordination of all things and creatures' meaningfully choosing their own thoughts, words, and actions.)
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/26/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Gerry,
I see your distinction between Calvinism and determinism. I think the reason why the others are having difficulty with your distinction is that both Calvinism and determinism have the same philosophical problem of evil. I.e., neither Calvinism nor determinism provide any intelligible explanation of ill desert or moral accountability.
You have already conceded (if I remember correctly) that such accountability is mysterious from a Calvinistic point of view. That's why rational discussion about it from a Calvinistic point of view is problematic - I would say impossible. Thus, the impasse. I've tried to get Lee (yes, YOU LEE  ) to see that, also.
WJS,
Indeed, God has not revealed everything to us. Though it is beyond our capacity to provide a full and inquisitive-satisfying explanation of how God's acting and our acting interface, we are not bound to retreat to the noton that this is irrational. Something that is beyond our rational comprehension is not thereby irrational. Instead, faith spans the gap between what God has revealed and what he has not disclosed. The rub, the point of conflict between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, is precisely at this juncture. And so, once again we come to an impasse.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/26/2004 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
It's getting late, I shall have to hurry... 
quote:
John: Do you agree with the Calvin quote I posted above, that all things come to pass according to God's determination and bidding?
I would say "under God's control," since I believe that believers can make real choices, within God's will, just as God the Father gives real authority to Jesus, and Jesus gives authority to believers, thus God the Father does not make all the choices for Jesus, and likewise with believers.
quote:
Tom: God didn't determine that agent S suffer X because he did Y and so deserves X. God's decrees for S are not conditioned by anything outside God.
Oh dear. Now the point is going exactly in the opposite direction. People are involved in their sins, thus they may be said to deserve punishment for them:
HAB 1:11 Then they sweep past like the wind and go on-- guilty men, whose own strength is their god.
And this is spoken of the Babylonians, who are acting to bring judgment, and carry out God's will. People are not shadows, they do will to do what they do, their purpose is bad, when they do what God intends for good (Gen. 50:20), thus they are guilty.
quote:
John: As to Christians suffering, I do see your point; but again, in Calvin's system NO ONE deserves anything but hell from God. Therefore, if even a Christian suffers, it is only what he deserves, even if only a portion of what he deserves.
But Christians have been justified! Christ took the punishment for our sins, thus we are freed from that punishment.
2CO 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Thus suffering that happens to believers, when they are in the will of God, is in a real sense, undeserved:
JOB 2:3 ... you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.
quote:
When all of these factors are taken together—i.e., when the eternal and comprehensive decree is also said to be efficacious and unconditional—the only possible result is a theistic determinism. Consistent Calvinists acknowledge this and accept its implications, even to the point of denying human free will. They freely affirm with Storms that “human free will is a myth.”
I don't! I think Jesus freely chooses, within the Father's will:
MT 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
And believers may similarly choose freely, within God's will:
1CO 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along?
1CO 9:1 Am I not free?
quote:
John: And all that go to heaven actually deserve hell.
No, they deserved hell. Now they are justified, "just as if I never sinned," as I have heard this term explained.
quote:
Jeff: If God brings about the "evil per se" that He DOESN'T wish in order to get to the good result that He DOES wish, God has created a world wherein are aspects that He DOESN'T wish!!
I would say God brings about the "evil per se" that he doesn't delight in. But he does wish the action, because of the result.
quote:
On the other hand, if ONLY the good result is important, then you need to admit the possibility that God EVEN wishes the "evil per se" that leads to the good result.
God's desires were in concert with his will, even at the cross:
ISA 53:10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him...
Again, because of the result:
ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied.
The anguish has a result, without the anguish there would be no result, thus the Lord was pleased to do even this. And this, I think, also speaks to Tigger's point:
quote:
Tiggers: I don’t see how the traditional Christian God could be a loving God because an all loving, all powerful God would not have to use deplorable means to achieve her/his ends.
REV 5:9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."
Without Jesus shedding his blood, this praise would be impossible.
quote:
Jeff: neither Calvinism nor determinism provide any intelligible explanation of ill desert or moral accountability.
People are involved in their sins, though, that is my reply, as mentioned above. They willingly do, for a bad purpose, what God intends that they do, for a good purpose.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/26/2004 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
John: As to Christians suffering, I do see your point; but again, in Calvin's system NO ONE deserves anything but hell from God. Therefore, if even a Christian suffers, it is only what he deserves, even if only a portion of what he deserves.
But Christians have been justified! Christ took the punishment for our sins, thus we are freed from that punishment.
I have been able to find no scriptural support for the penal substitution theory of the atonement. If you know of any, I would be sincerely glad to see it.
quote:
John: And all that go to heaven actually deserve hell.
quote:
No, they deserved hell. Now they are justified, "just as if I never sinned," as I have heard this term explained.
What is the penalty for sin? One sin? Are you saying they now DESERVE heaven? How is that grace?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2004 1:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry,
quote:
Indeed, God has not revealed everything to us. Though it is beyond our capacity to provide a full and inquisitive-satisfying explanation of how God's acting and our acting interface, we are not bound to retreat to the noton that this is irrational. Something that is beyond our rational comprehension is not thereby irrational. Instead, faith spans the gap between what God has revealed and what he has not disclosed. The rub, the point of conflict between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, is precisely at this juncture. And so, once again we come to an impasse.
Gerry
The confusion, I think, comes when you speak of an "interface" between "God's acting AND our acting." You admit that BOTH God AND humans act. OV'ers agree, and think that the action of both (God and us) is, at least in some cases, an action of final cause - hence, free-will. We find the belief in final causes (i.e., freewill) to be intuitive and, thus, need no special disclosure from God to understand it. Granted, the concept of final cause cannot be resolved into more fundamental intuitions, but we KNOW what we mean by them just as surely as we know what we mean by time and space.
Calvinists seem to understand WHAT final causes are just as well as OV'ers; Calvinists just deny that they exist - at least in humans. Or am I misunderstanding them?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/27/2004 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Gerry,
quote:
Indeed, God has not revealed everything to us. Though it is beyond our capacity to provide a full and inquisitive-satisfying explanation of how God's acting and our acting interface, we are not bound to retreat to the noton that this is irrational. Something that is beyond our rational comprehension is not thereby irrational. Instead, faith spans the gap between what God has revealed and what he has not disclosed. The rub, the point of conflict between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, is precisely at this juncture. And so, once again we come to an impasse.
Gerry
The confusion, I think, comes when you speak of an "interface" between "God's acting AND our acting." You admit that BOTH God AND humans act. OV'ers agree, and think that the action of both (God and us) is, at least in some cases, an action of final cause - hence, free-will. We find the belief in final causes (i.e., freewill) to be intuitive and, thus, need no special disclosure from God to understand it. Granted, the concept of final cause cannot be resolved into more fundamental intuitions, but we KNOW what we mean by them just as surely as we know what we mean by time and space.
Calvinists seem to understand WHAT final causes are just as well as OV'ers; Calvinists just deny that they exist - at least in humans. Or am I misunderstanding them?
WJS,
I trust that it is not news to you or to anyone else that Calvinists believe that both God and humans act in singular human actions. Furthermore, Calvinists believe that in human acting God is not passive or that in God's acting humans are not passive. Both are active participants in the same acts. So, Scripture attributes intention of acts, even evil acts, to both God and humans. Yet, God is never culpable for sin or evil, for neither God's intending nor his acting are liable to charges of sin. No one can say, "God made me do it. God tempted me" (James 1:13). Humans sin without external constraint. Humans cannot blame God for their sinful deeds, nor can they blame the Devil. Humans always do what they want to do. Humans act from within. "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14). So, Scripture unabashedly affirms both God's intention and Joseph's brothers' intention in the one act of conspiring to deceive Jacob, leading him to believe Joseph was slaughtered by an animal, and to sell Joseph into slavery. "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20).
I'm not sure what you mean by final cause. If by final cause you mean culpability for an act, then obviously Joseph's ten brothers were guilty of the final cause in that they were entirely culpable for the one act that both God and they intended. Scripture makes it clear that the ten brothers were culpable for their conspiracy against Joseph. Yet, Scripture also makes it clear that their conspiracy was not ultimately willy-nilly. Though surely the ten brothers thought they would be rid of Joseph forever, they failed to realize that their intentions were being superintended by God who had a far grander design for their conspiratorial act. God acted behind the scenes to bring the act of the brothers to reality but to a reality ultimately different from what they were designing and planning. The Bible's text requires us to acknowledge this. The Bible's text forbids us to conclude that God began to act after the brothers acted so that he could bring about something good from their evil act. How does the Bible forbid us to come to such a conclusion? It forbids such a conclusion because the Bible makes it clear that God acted at the level of intention that brought about the evil act. God's intentions were antecedent to the intentions of the ten brothers, for God is God in whose drama the ten brothers were players whom God designed and intended to carry out an act, a wicked act, that would place Joseph in Egypt from where he would become the deliverer of his own family, including his own brothers whose evil deed was instrumental in the grand divine story of redemption that was unfolding, foreshadowing things that were to come. This is precisely what the Bible says: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20). God was active; God was not passive. So, the ten brothers who acted with evil intentions carried out God's good intentions by their evil act. God is to be worshiped and praised for his marvelous deed; the ten brothers are to be denounced for their wicked deed. See! It is one act, evil by human design, yet for good by God's design. It is an amazing mystery, unfathomable but neither irrational nor incapable of being expressed. And it surely is not beyond belief. It beckons belief. More than that, it requires belief.
May all praise God for his marvelous deeds!
Gerry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 5/27/2004 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee Asserts,
quote:
Tiggers: I don’t see how the traditional Christian God could be a loving God because an all loving, all powerful God would not have to use deplorable means to achieve her/his ends.
”REV 5:9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."
Without Jesus shedding his blood, this praise would be impossible.”
Tiggers’ Reply,
Hey Lee, great to hear from you, truly. It’s has always been nice to read your stuff on this board. Ok, I see where you’re coming from, but to parallel Jesus’ loving sacrificial act as deplorable would be incorrect. Please understand that when I use the term “deplorable” in the CONTEXT of my above argument I simply mean EVIL. Now, you and I both know what Christ did was not evil, but rather loving; furthermore, I believe you’re missing the whole point here.
Check this out Lee, if God purposes all things (i.e. controls & decrees all things before they happen) then as Mackie rightly points out God could just as easily have purposed only good to come about; thus, if God were all loving, etc. she/he would not have to use evil or even have had to send her/his Son to die. Why? Because God purposes all things. Nevertheless, God did have to send her/his Son and break the curse that our wills brought us to in the first place. Now, in a world where we are called to choose Love we must also have the ability to not choose love…so the world becomes a little messy…is the choice worth it…yes  (well at least I think so)!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
PS
This is a bit rushed cause I’m off to vacation…..sweeeeet, and it’s about time!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/27/2004 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: But Christians have been justified! Christ took the punishment for our sins, thus we are freed from that punishment.
John: I have been able to find no scriptural support for the penal substitution theory of the atonement. If you know of any, I would be sincerely glad to see it.
Here are some verses that I would think say that Christ took our punishment, and freed us from that punishment:
2CO 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.
HEB 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
2CO 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
RO 5:19 ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
RO 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...
ISA 53:5 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.
quote:
What is the penalty for sin? One sin? Are you saying they now DESERVE heaven? How is that grace?
I'm not sure what you are asking in the first two questions, "the wages of sin is death," this is even for one sin, and Christ died for our sins (Rom. 5:8). And I should have explained further! No, believers don't deserve heaven, even at our best, we are only unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10). But we don't deserve hell, either, after Christ has justified us.
quote:
Gerry: Humans sin without external constraint.
I agree with most of what you said, but here I would say there is indeed external constraint:
2TI 2:26 ... the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
JN 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."
AC 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
quote:
Tiggers: if God were all loving, etc. she/he would not have to use evil or even have had to send her/his Son to die. Why? Because God purposes all things.
But I think God did make the plan, both for sin to occur, and for redemption to occur:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Thus even Adam's disobedience was in God's plan, "God is not cleaning up after the devil" (Joni Eareckson Tada).
PS 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.
PR 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose...
Happy vacationing!
[quote]Jeff: You say the Lord was pleased to do "EVEN" [the cross], as if it's obvious that he is pleased to do everything else. But THAT is not obvious.
It does seem implied to me, though, that if God's desires were in concert with his will, even in the worst sinful deed that has ever been done, then we may conclude that it is possible that God's desires are in concert with his will, all the time. And I believe Scripture says that plainly, too:
ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
PS 135:6 All that pleases the Lord, he has done, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.
And I think this is also implied clearly in the verses that say that God cannot be frustrated:
ISA 43:13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/27/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Here are some verses that I would think say that Christ took our punishment, and freed us from that punishment:
2CO 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.
But this simply refers to forgiveness, not retribution.
quote:
HEB 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Ditto.
quote:
2CO 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Most commentaries I have studied on this have said this is an allusion to the "sin offering" of the OT. If so, it would also not speak of a penal substitution/retribution, but rather a symbolic sacrifice like the scapegoat.
quote:
RO 5:19 ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Where is retribution/punishment referred to in this verse?
quote:
RO 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...
All this says is that the spiritual union of the believer with and in Christ frees him the believer from condemnation.
quote:
ISA 53:5 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.
This sounds the closest to penal substitution of all the verses you presented. Even so, scholars I have studied have all agreed that no systematic developed doctrine of the atonement is presented in Scripture.
quote:
What is the penalty for sin? One sin? Are you saying they now DESERVE heaven? How is that grace?
I'm not sure what you are asking in the first two questions, "the wages of sin is death," this is even for one sin, and Christ died for our sins (Rom. 5:8). And I should have explained further! No, believers don't deserve heaven, even at our best, we are only unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10). But we don't deserve hell, either, after Christ has justified us.
We still deserve hell after Christ has justified us. Grace is getting what we don't deserve.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/29/2004 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
Jeff: You say the Lord was pleased to do "EVEN" [the cross], as if it's obvious that he is pleased to do everything else. But THAT is not obvious.
It does seem implied to me, though, that if God's desires were in concert with his will, even in the worst sinful deed that has ever been done, then we may conclude that it is possible that God's desires are in concert with his will, all the time.
Are you now saying that God desires the evil "per se?"
[quote]And I believe Scripture says that plainly, too:
ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
PS 135:6 All that pleases the Lord, he has done, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.
And I think this is also implied clearly in the verses that say that God cannot be frustrated:
ISA 43:13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?
None of those verses says God DOES ALL THINGS. People and angels DO things TOO. Calvinists will concede with lip service and then appeal to mystery to account for their belief that somehow God is EVEN doing what people and angels are doing. Hence, the breakdown in logic and communication. Can you not see the impasse??
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/29/2004 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi John and Jeff,
quote:
Lee: Here are some verses that I would think say that Christ took our punishment, and freed us from that punishment:
2CO 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.
But this simply refers to forgiveness, not retribution.
But forgiveness means you don't have to pay:
MT 6:12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
If you are forgiven, you don't owe, and if you don't owe, you don't pay.
quote:
ISA 53:5 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.
This sounds the closest to penal substitution of all the verses you presented. Even so, scholars I have studied have all agreed that no systematic developed doctrine of the atonement is presented in Scripture.
OK, but there is Scriptural support for the doctrine. There are examples in the OT as well:
GE 22:13 He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
LEV 4:15 The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull's head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord.
LEV 8:34 What has been done today was commanded by the Lord to make atonement for you.
And one more NT verse:
MK 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
quote:
Lee: No, believers don't deserve heaven, even at our best, we are only unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10). But we don't deserve hell, either, after Christ has justified us.
John: We still deserve hell after Christ has justified us.
But then God is unjust, if we really deserve hell, and he doesn't give us what we deserve! That is why the sacrifice and substitution of Jesus is important, so we can be "justified," which is a verdict of "innocent," and a real verdict, and not a mere label, in Christ it is "just as if we never sinned," thus not only the penalty of sin is removed, but also the guilt of sin, and the deserving of punishment.
quote:
Grace is getting what we don't deserve.
I agree! We don't deserve heaven, but we don't deserve the penalty of hell, either, after turning to Christ.
quote:
Jeff: None of those verses says God DOES ALL THINGS. People and angels DO things TOO. Calvinists will concede with lip service and then appeal to mystery to account for their belief that somehow God is EVEN doing what people and angels are doing.
OK, I wasn't trying to show that God does everything, I was trying to show that God's desires are not in conflict with his will. I actually believe that God shares his authority! Thus within God's will, people can really choose, thus God does not "do everything."
But I believe that God is not passive, when people act, rather, he is acting as well, and carrying out his plan:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good..."
JN 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/29/2004 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
But forgiveness means you don't have to pay:
MT 6:12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
If you are forgiven, you don't owe, and if you don't owe, you don't pay.
As in the parable of the ungrateful, unforgiving servant, it is not the case that we could ever pay back the debt; the debt is simply FORGIVEN in view of God's mercy in Christ.
Lee
OK, but there is Scriptural support for the doctrine. There are examples in the OT as well:
GE 22:13 He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
LEV 4:15 The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull's head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord.
LEV 8:34 What has been done today was commanded by the Lord to make atonement for you.
John:
Substitution, yes. Penal substition, how? Do you mean to suggest that the ram had to spent eternity suffering in hell for the persons he died to atone for? In order for Penal Substition to be true, Christ would have had to suffer exactly what was due those He suffered in place of. If He did not, then his sufferings can only have been relative satisfaction, not strict quid pro quo.
Lee:
And one more NT verse:
MK 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
John:
There is a clear difference between a ransom and a debt.
quote:
Lee: No, believers don't deserve heaven, even at our best, we are only unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10). But we don't deserve hell, either, after Christ has justified us.
John: We still deserve hell after Christ has justified us.
But then God is unjust, if we really deserve hell, and he doesn't give us what we deserve! That is why the sacrifice and substitution of Jesus is important, so we can be "justified," which is a verdict of "innocent," and a real verdict, and not a mere label, in Christ it is "just as if we never sinned," thus not only the penalty of sin is removed, but also the guilt of sin, and the deserving of punishment.
John:
In my understanding, God is perfect just in forgiving us on the basis of what Christ has done for us. Without an sacrifice/atonement, God would in fact be unjust to forgive out of sheer mercy.
Again I must ask you, Lee, does anyone but Christ DESERVE heaven?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/29/2004 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
Oops, I messed up my previous post, and left an extra quote thingy in there. I should know better, too, I'm one of those programmer people. I speak Geek. Geek and Homebrew.
quote:
Lee: If you are forgiven, you don't owe, and if you don't owe, you don't pay.
John: As in the parable of the ungrateful, unforgiving servant, it is not the case that we could ever pay back the debt; the debt is simply FORGIVEN in view of God's mercy in Christ.
Very true, but our debt is what Christ paid for us, so we don't have to be punished:
MT 18:34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Thus I think "forgive us our debts" teaches penal substitution, because the reason God forgives us, is because Jesus paid our debt for us:
RO 3:25-26 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
quote:
GE 22:13 He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
LEV 4:15 The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull's head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord.
John: Substitution, yes. Penal substition, how? Do you mean to suggest that the ram had to spent eternity suffering in hell for the persons he died to atone for? In order for Penal Substition to be true, Christ would have had to suffer exactly what was due those He suffered in place of. If He did not, then his sufferings can only have been relative satisfaction, not strict quid pro quo.
But there was a penalty borne by the ram, I think, and this is certainly a picture of Christ and his sacrifice of himself for us. Certainly the animal sacrifices did not really take away sin (Heb. 10:4), but they were a picture of the suffering of Christ, which did take away sin (John 1:29).
And I think the sufferings of Christ were certainly enough to pay for all the sin of the whole world. I don't believe it is necessary to say "so much sin requires so much suffering." But I think there is a principle here that people recognize, that sin involves a penalty, and that penalty involves suffering, which may be borne by a substitute:
MIC 6:7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
quote:
MK 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
John: There is a clear difference between a ransom and a debt.
They are not the same, I agree. But if you owe a debt, and go to prison for that debt, then someone can come and pay that debt, and properly then be said to have ransomed you.
HEB 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant ... now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
quote:
Lee: But then God is unjust, if we really deserve hell, and he doesn't give us what we deserve! That is why the sacrifice and substitution of Jesus is important, so we can be "justified," which is a verdict of "innocent," and a real verdict, and not a mere label, in Christ it is "just as if we never sinned," thus not only the penalty of sin is removed, but also the guilt of sin, and the deserving of punishment.
John: In my understanding, God is perfect just in forgiving us on the basis of what Christ has done for us. Without an sacrifice/atonement, God would in fact be unjust to forgive out of sheer mercy.
Yes, I agree!
quote:
Again I must ask you, Lee, does anyone but Christ DESERVE heaven?
No one! I agree again...
JOB 41:11 Who has given to me that I should repay?
RO 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace...
RO 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with Him freely give us all things?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/30/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: None of those verses says God DOES ALL THINGS. People and angels DO things TOO. Calvinists will concede with lip service and then appeal to mystery to account for their belief that somehow God is EVEN doing what people and angels are doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I wasn't trying to show that God does everything, I was trying to show that God's desires are not in conflict with his will.
I'll ask again, then - are you now saying that God desires the evil "per se?" That's what it sounds like you're saying, to me.
quote:
I actually believe that God shares his authority! Thus within God's will, people can really choose, thus God does not "do everything."
But I believe that God is not passive, when people act, rather, he is acting as well, and carrying out his plan:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good..."
JN 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
But you have also said that humans/angels have no LFW. Hence, none of our actions could possibly have been any different than they were/are/will be. I think the truth is, you don't really believe God is a final cause, either. If He foreknows even His own future
"choices", as you've argued in another thread, then God is just as deterministic as you believe we are. Am I misunderstanding you?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: I was trying to show that God's desires are not in conflict with his will.
Jeff: I'll ask again, then - are you now saying that God desires the evil "per se?" That's what it sounds like you're saying, to me.
No, God desires the outcome:
REV 5:12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
If Jesus had not died, this praise would be impossible.
quote:
Lee: I actually believe that God shares his authority! Thus within God's will, people can really choose, thus God does not "do everything."
Jeff: But you have also said that humans/angels have no LFW. Hence, none of our actions could possibly have been any different than they were/are/will be. I think the truth is, you don't really believe God is a final cause, either.
True enough, I don't believe in LFW, just "freedom," within[b/] God's will. I believe God knows the actions even of those to whom he delegates authority, but I believe that those actions are still free, that God lets people make choices within his will.
GE 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden..."
quote:
If He foreknows even His own future "choices", as you've argued in another thread, then God is just as deterministic as you believe we are. Am I misunderstanding you?
Here's what I start from:
1) God knows the past, present and future.
2) God chooses freely.
Now I think I can find warrant in Scripture for both of these:
ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
JN 21:17 He said, "Lord, you know all things..."
1JN 3:20 For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
HOS 14:4 "I will heal their waywardness and love them freely..."
EPH 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
But I can't explain either of them! Nor can I explain the deduction I make from these two statements, that a choice can be known, and yet be free.
Just as I find warrant to believe that Christ died for my sins in Scripture, but I can't explain this thoroughly...
I think we can experience freedom as believers, though, and realize that we are yet within God's plan, when we choose. So we can get some of the answer to these questions as we live them out!
But I don't think we're going to explain them thoroughly, I don't understand mathematics, and that's mostly man's thoughts, much less God's thoughts...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/31/2004 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If He foreknows even His own future "choices", as you've argued in another thread, then God is just as deterministic as you believe we are. Am I misunderstanding you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what I start from:
1) God knows the past, present and future.
2) God chooses freely.
Now I think I can find warrant in Scripture for both of these:
ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
JN 21:17 He said, "Lord, you know all things..."
1JN 3:20 For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
HOS 14:4 "I will heal their waywardness and love them freely..."
EPH 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
But I can't explain either of them! Nor can I explain the deduction I make from these two statements, that a choice can be known, and yet be free.
First, John 21:17 is not absolute (we know this from other scripture) so I have no reason to assume 1 JN 3:20 is. Second, I don't see what is mystical about EPH 1:6. Could you explain?
And as I said in a previous reply, I don't know what it means to say we "believe" something we can't "understand." That's unintelligible to me. You seem to be coming very close to saying that the law of non-contradiction is illusory, from which follows absolute intellectual suicide.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2004 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: But I can't explain either of them! Nor can I explain the deduction I make from these two statements, that a choice can be known, and yet be free.
Jeff: First, John 21:17 is not absolute (we know this from other scripture) so I have no reason to assume 1 JN 3:20 is.
But John 21:17 was after the resurrection! And 1 Jn. 3:20 is after the ascension, and after Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt. 28:18).
quote:
Second, I don't see what is mystical about EPH 1:6. Could you explain?
When God gives us his grace, that is a free choice on his part, that's what I'm saying. We don't earn it, and he is not compelled to give it.
quote:
And as I said in a previous reply, I don't know what it means to say we "believe" something we can't "understand." That's unintelligible to me. You seem to be coming very close to saying that the law of non-contradiction is illusory, from which follows absolute intellectual suicide.
"I don't understand everything about electricity, but I'm not going to sit around in the dark until I do" (Vance Havner).
I don't understand airplanes, but I'm not going to take the bus until I do. I don't even understand buses...
I try and understand as much as I can, of course! But I don't think I'm going to master theology, even though people do get Master's degrees in that area...
1CO 8:2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/31/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: But I can't explain either of them! Nor can I explain the deduction I make from these two statements, that a choice can be known, and yet be free.
Jeff: First, John 21:17 is not absolute (we know this from other scripture) so I have no reason to assume 1 JN 3:20 is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But John 21:17 was after the resurrection! And 1 Jn. 3:20 is after the ascension, and after Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt. 28:18).
Acts 1:7 says "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in is own authority." This might be saying that Christ STILL did not know the day or hour of his parousia. Besides, I'm not aware of a verse that says just because Christ resurrected/ascended He took on omniscience, are you?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, I don't see what is mystical about EPH 1:6. Could you explain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When God gives us his grace, that is a free choice on his part, that's what I'm saying. We don't earn it, and he is not compelled to give it.
That doesn't equal mysterious in the way we're discussing. Some thing's are beyond our current knowledge. Other things are not, but are undisclosed. But when you say God foreknows his LFW choices, you are appealing to the "mysterious," in the sense that the human mind can never understand it regardless of how much information is given. I.e., it is counter-intuitive, or at least supra-intuitive. The verses don't REQUIRE us to hold to such an extreme view.
On a thread about the Revelation, someone was talking about the over-generalizations in Proverbs - verses that if taken at face value with no presumed qualification would be false. That's what we're saying; just because a verse CAN be taken absolutely does not mean it should be. That's why you weren't able to show a consensus of non-OV'er commentators who hold your view. Language is not like math. Thus, one MUST discuss metaphysics and hermeneutics before a fruitful conversation about scripture can happen.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I said in a previous reply, I don't know what it means to say we "believe" something we can't "understand." That's unintelligible to me. You seem to be coming very close to saying that the law of non-contradiction is illusory, from which follows absolute intellectual suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't understand everything about electricity, but I'm not going to sit around in the dark until I do" (Vance Havner).
I don't understand airplanes, but I'm not going to take the bus until I do. I don't even understand buses...
I try and understand as much as I can, of course! But I don't think I'm going to master theology, even though people do get Master's degrees in that area...
None of the things listed are "mysterious" in the way we're discussing. I would concede that IF God foreknows in a way we can't understand, it may be only supra-intuitive. But to say that God is just, and yet holds creatures with no LFW morally accountable is counter-intuitive. Counter-intuitive statements have no meaning and thus cannot be believed. You can SAY you believe it, but it's like me saying I believe 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5; it's nonsensical.
To make it work, you have to redefine what "just" and "morally accountable" mean to make it sensical. But I've never seen a Calvinist do that.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2004 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: But John 21:17 was after the resurrection! And 1 Jn. 3:20 is after the ascension, and after Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt. 28:18).
Jeff: Acts 1:7 says "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in is own authority." This might be saying that Christ STILL did not know the day or hour of his parousia. Besides, I'm not aware of a verse that says just because Christ resurrected/ascended He took on omniscience, are you?
True enough, it's a deduction. Just like you are making deductions, and I believe it is more likely that Jesus is now omniscient, since he is certainly God, and God knows everything.
quote:
... when you say God foreknows his LFW choices, you are appealing to the "mysterious," in the sense that the human mind can never understand it regardless of how much information is given. I.e., it is counter-intuitive, or at least supra-intuitive. The verses don't REQUIRE us to hold to such an extreme view.
No, again, this is a deduction, but still a sound one, I think. Most of Christendom has believed these two points throughout the centuries, that God knows all the past, present and future, and that he chooses freely. And this implies God knowing his decisions, and yet having them remain free.
quote:
... just because a verse CAN be taken absolutely does not mean it should be. That's why you weren't able to show a consensus of non-OV'er commentators who hold your view.
I must have missed that, what point was that in reference to? The only appeal to such tradition I recall making is to the two points of omniscience and free choices being made by God.
quote:
Language is not like math. Thus, one MUST discuss metaphysics and hermeneutics before a fruitful conversation about scripture can happen.
Metaphysics and hermeneutics are important! But we may understand Scripture without having those concepts all sorted out:
2CO 1:13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.
MT 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
"A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five" (Groucho Marx).
quote:
Jeff: But to say that God is just, and yet holds creatures with no LFW morally accountable is counter-intuitive. Counter-intuitive statements have no meaning and thus cannot be believed. You can SAY you believe it, but it's like me saying I believe 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5; it's nonsensical.
To make it work, you have to redefine what "just" and "morally accountable" mean to make it sensical. But I've never seen a Calvinist do that.
Then how is it just that God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart and sin and bring judgment on Egypt? I think even the Open View has this question to answer. You could say Pharaoh hardened his heart, but God did that, too, and it was his purpose for Pharaoh to sinfully harden his heart. So how is Pharaoh accountable?
People get involved in their sins, though those sins are in God's plan, that is my response here. They are not mere shadows, there is a human will involved, though it is a sinful will, and captive to sin. There is even accountability for unintentional sins:
LEV 4:27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty.
How much more, when people sin, and mean to?
GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good...
They did God's plan, but they intended evil, and thus they were guilty.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|