Origin of Sin, Part Deux

[DHK]

Listen to it DHK:

"In all this Job did not charge God foolishly."

We agree. Job didn't charge God foolishly, and neither should any of us.
If anyone here charges God foolishly it would be you because you attribute evil to God. You claim that God ordains evil. That is the foolish charge. Job did not do that.

That is what the Word of God says about Job's comment, "The Lord hath taken away."

And he doesn't say that the Lord has done evil to him.
He doesn't blame God. God is not the author of evil.
It is his wife that curses God, not Job.

Eccl 7:13-14 Consider the work of God: who can make straight what He has made crooked? 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.

THAT is what God's Word teaches. You do not accept the Word of God. You accept only your tradition and try to FORCE the Word of God into its mold.

But the Word of God is clear whether you are willing to see it or not.

Consider the source and context of Ecclesiates before you quote from it. Why do cults use this book more than any other? Solomon takes the view of a secular philosopher, and looks at life from man's point of view, not God's. You would be wise to think about that before quoting such a verse. His conclusion is not given until the end of chapter 12.

 

[Luke2427]

I thought the Brother is getting his advanced training from Liberty.....Aint that one o urin learnin centers?:laugh:

Yea, it is always amusing to me that people like Winman say I am regurgitating what I have been told to believe by Calvinist pastors and professors and I have never once in my life had a Calvinist pastor or sat for ten seconds as a student under a single Calvinist professor.

I am attending an institution which is vehemently opposed to the DoG (i.e. Ergun Caner vs James White controversy)

But I just repeat what I have been told.

The fact is that I was raised a Free Will Baptist.

My first higher education experience was at Southeastern Free Will Baptist College which is a 5 point ARMINIAN institution.

I am now pursuing a degree in an institution which is very antagonistic towards Calvinism.

 

[Luke2427]

We agree. Job didn't charge God foolishly, and neither should any of us.
If anyone here charges God foolishly it would be you because you attribute evil to God. You claim that God ordains evil. That is the foolish charge. Job did not do that. And he doesn't say that the Lord has done evil to him.
He doesn't blame God. God is not the author of evil.
It is his wife that curses God, not Job.

You just do not get it.

Job DID charge God with the evil that befell him. Job said:

the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

22In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

and...

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 the is did not Job sin with his lips.

I cannot believe that you cannot see this.

Job said, "I ahve received evil at the hand of the Lord."
God's Word said- "AMEN"

That is the idea the text CLEARLY declares.

This is SO simple.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

In all this - In all his feelings and expressions on this occasion.

Job sinned not - He expressed just the feelings and manifested just the submission which he ought to do.

Nor charged God foolishly - Margin, "Attributed folly to God." Vulgate, "Neither did he speak any foolish thing against God." The Septuagint renders it, "and he did not impute (or give, ἐδωκεν edōken) folly (ἀφροσύνην aphrosunēn) (indiscretion, 'Thompson') to God." Good renders this, "nor vented a murmur against God;" and remarks that the literal rendering would be, "nor vented froth against God. Tindal renders it, "nor murmured foolishly against God." The Hebrew word תפלה tı̂phlâh is derived from the obsolete root תפל tâphêl, "to spit out;" and hence, to be insipid, tasteless, not seasoned. The noun, therefore, means properly that which is spit out; then that which is insipid or tasteless; and then folly. Wit and wisdom are represented by Oriental writers as pungent and seasoned; compare the expression among the Greeks of "Attic salt," meaning wit or wisdom. The word "folly" in the Scriptures often means wickedness, for this is supreme folly. Here it has this sense, and means that Job did not say anything "wrong." Satan was disappointed and had borne a false accusation before God. He did "not" charge God foolishly, and he did "not" curse him to his face.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

In all this Job sinned not - He did not give way to any action, passion, or expression, offensive to his Maker. He did not charge God with acting unkindly towards him, but felt as perfectly satisfied with the privation which the hand of God had occasioned, as he was with the affluence and health which that hand had bestowed. This is the transaction that gave the strong and vivid colouring to the character of Job; in this, and in this alone, he was a pattern of patience and resignation.

Neither of these commentaries are Calvinist, btw. The latter is WESLEYAN ARMINIAN!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yea, it is always amusing to me that people like Winman say I am regurgitating what I have been told to believe by Calvinist pastors and professors and I have never once in my life had a Calvinist pastor or sat for ten seconds as a student under a single Calvinist professor.

I am attending an institution which is vehemently opposed to the DoG (i.e. Ergun Caner vs James White controversy)

But I just repeat what I have been told.

The fact is that I was raised a Free Will Baptist.

My first higher education experience was at Southeastern Free Will Baptist College which is a 5 point ARMINIAN institution.

I am now pursuing a degree in an institution which is very antagonistic towards Calvinism.

Yes & very publicly so! Antagonistic would be a light word to use Im thinkin.

 

[Skandelon]

Can you direct me to the post where you addressed post 65?

Still can't find it.

 

[DHK]

You just do not get it.

Job DID charge God with the evil that befell him. Job said:

the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

22In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

and...

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 the is did not Job sin with his lips.

But why are you giving Job's point of view instead of God's. God's point of view is given in the first few verses which sets the scenario for what follows. It is God that gives permission to Satan. It really doesn't matter what Job says in this context concerning God. It is God that gives Satan permission. We have that scene in heaven, with the very words of God himself.
God's words over-rule Job's words every time!

 

[Luke2427]

But why are you giving Job's point of view instead of God's. God's point of view is given in the first few verses which sets the scenario for what follows. It is God that gives permission to Satan. It really doesn't matter what Job says in this context concerning God. It is God that gives Satan permission. We have that scene in heaven, with the very words of God himself.
God's words over-rule Job's words every time!

I gave you God's Word on the matter: "In all this Job did not charge God foolishly".

In other words, when Job charged God with taking away all that he had, God's word said that was not a foolish charge.

God himself said he did it later on (not that that will be enough for you).

Job 2
3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause


Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

 

[Skandelon]

But why are you giving Job's point of view instead of God's. God's point of view is given in the first few verses which sets the scenario for what follows. It is God that gives permission to Satan. It really doesn't matter what Job says in this context concerning God. It is God that gives Satan permission. We have that scene in heaven, with the very words of God himself.
God's words over-rule Job's words every time!

Plus, isn't the Calvinists who insist the passages where it says God relented or changed his mind are that way because people don't understand how else to express it from the human perspective, so they speak of God as if was like a man (it's call anthropomorphic)? So, why in passages where a man questions God would you presume that the man's perspective is completely accurate and aware of the heavenly conversation between Satan and God?

 

[Luke2427]

I gave you God's Word on the matter: "In all this Job did not charge God foolishly".

In other words, when Job charged God with taking away all that he had, God's word said that was not a foolish charge.

God himself said he did it later on (not that that will be enough for you).

Job 2
3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause


Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Not that you will be willing to submit yourself to the Word of God if it disagrees with your tradition but God's Word also says of the evil that befell Job:

Job 42
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:

I await the spin doctor.

 

[Luke2427]

Still can't find it.

Post # 67 sufficiently addresses it, imo.

If you require FURTHER clarification, let me know.

But I am not going to keep posting lengthy, detailed posts like post 67 and have them ignored and then be posed with the exact same questions I just answered.

 

[Luke2427]

Plus, isn't the Calvinists who insist the passages where it says God relented or changed his mind are that way because people don't understand how else to express it from the human perspective, so they speak of God as if was like a man (it's call anthropomorphic)? So, why in passages where a man questions God would you presume that the man's perspective is completely accurate and aware of the heavenly conversation between Satan and God?

Because, for the tenth time, God's Word AFFIRMS the testimony of Job as I have clearly shown.

 

[Skandelon]

Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

It always interests me to see how both camps pluck verses from their contexts in order to provide proof texts to support their view. In this same chapter it is also written:

4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. 5 They have acted corruptly toward him; to their shame they are no longer his children, but a warped and crooked generation. 6 Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?

(Doesn't make much sense for someone in one sentence to rebuke these people for being "foolish, warped, crooked and unwise" and in the next line remind them that God had made and formed them if you believe that God made and formed them in such a way that they couldn't have done otherwise. He should have just said, "God formed and made you into foolish, warped, crooked and unwise people, but because that is what you wanted you will be held accountable anyway.")

The same chapter also says, "18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. 19 The LORD saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters. 20 "I will hide my face from them," he said, "and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. 21 They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols."

Again, not presented as a God who doesn't respond and react to man's rebellion and certainly doesn't sound like a God who created them in such a way that they would certainly act this way. He is angered and even jealous by their rebellion. Be objective here, when you read your verse in this context most people would not walk away with the picture of the Calvinistic picture of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Because, for the tenth time, God's Word AFFIRMS the testimony of Job as I have clearly shown.

My point exactly.

As if God's word doesn't also affirm the testimony of these so called "anthropomorphic" texts?

Example: Ps. 106:23
Therefore he said he would destroy them-- had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

This is God's word affirming the Gen 30 account of God's relenting in the destruction of Israel. So, which one do you believe?

How about both?

 

[Skandelon]

Post # 67 sufficiently addresses it, imo.

If you require FURTHER clarification, let me know.

But I am not going to keep posting lengthy, detailed posts like post 67 and have them ignored and then be posed with the exact same questions I just answered.

Actually, with all due respect Luke, I do plan on responding to post 67, but only after you reply to post 65. Post 67 was your reply to post 62, not 65. You do not address all the questions I pose in #65.

You did address one of the questions I posed and I'll reply to that in the next post, but you didn't answer these questions:

Skandelon: This doesn't remove the problem or answer the question we have been asking. I have affirmed this. God's disposing, arranging or ordering of events so as to ensure other things follow doesn't answer the question as to the origin of the intent to sin. Follow me on this.

Let's suppose Dahmer's dad beat him which was one of the "events" disposed by God. Does that mean that God originated the thought or intent of Mr. Dahmer to beat his kid? No, it means, as Edwards said, God permitted, or did not hinder it so that Dahmer's intent to molest and kill would most certainly come to pass. Again, you still have Dahmer originating the intent to sin just as you have his dad originating his own intent to sin. Calling God the disposer of events doesn't make him any more the originator of the sinful intent, it simply affirms the idea that he foreknew the sinful events an permitted them to certainly occur. How is that any more or less deterministic than what I have already affirmed about Edwards quote?

Quote: Luke
That is the clear meaning. God is NOT JUST the permitter of sin. He is the One who orders events SO THAT sin will come to pass.

Skandelon: Does "order" mean "cause/create/originate" because if so then the event where Dahmer's dad intended to beat his son was originated by God rather than permitted by God, as Edwards explains with regard to sinful acts. Which is it?

Can you reply to this part? Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

God must do several things for anything to come to pass.
1. He must permit it.

Why? Why does God need to permit something he caused or originated?

Please explain that. If you casually determined your son to lie, then what purpose would there be in merely saying that you permitted him to lie? You never just permitted him, you actually CAUSED him to do it, so what in the world does mere permission have to do with something you caused? Do you understand my question?

Which is a weaker way of saying that many Arminians agree with Calvinism on this point. Arminianism came late to the party. Calvinism doesn't agree with Arminianism on anything. Arminianism agrees with Calvinism on some things.

Actually, when it comes to the original doctrines (way before Calvin and Arminius came along), the early church fathers were more in line with what we know of as Arminian doctrine and Augustine was the first to espouse more Calvinistic teaching. (but that is for another post)

It would be, imo, a nobler and more honest way of saying this than indicating that Edwards agrees with Arminians- though it is true, and though he may have said ti that way, we all know what he meant and we all know that Calvinism was here first.

No we don't. Calvin preceded Arminus, but the doctrines of each predate them both as explained above.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who agrees with whom first in regard to our discussion, what matters is that Edwards words and thus his intent is not inconsistent with historical Arminianism, whereas yours appears to be.

So, if we played the little Sesame Street game "which one of these is not like the other," we would have a picture of historical arminians, a picture of Edwards and a picture of Luke. We would have the Arminians and Edwards all saying the same thing regarding God's permitting evil and disposing of events to so that they certainly come about, and then we would have you saying things like, ""Did Dahmer kill those people? Yes. Did God kill them? God's own testimony: "I kill and I make alive.""

Which one is different? Luke is.

Why? I'm not sure because he won't define his terms.

I do not know why we are debating. You are a Calvinist.

<Charles drops his head in frustration, shakes it hopelessly and walks away mumbling something about how he wished more people understood real Arminianism>

Please explain to me why you do not understand this. Why can you not seem to understand that if ANYTHING is to occur that God has decreed he must ALSO permit it when the time comes for it to come to pass?

Why would God need to permit something he caused?

This is uncalled for. We are trying to have a civil conversation. And he has said nothing of which he ought to be embarrassed. If he had you would have been nobler not to say so.

I'm sorry if you feel I stepped over the line, but he was kind of embarrassing himself by suggesting that Edwards was attempting to claim that God is the author of evil, when in reality he was debunking that accusation by DEFINING his position as one which actually lines up with the "Arminian divines." Before this rebuke I did warn him to reread the quote twice, but he continued to press that argument as if he still had not read the quote in its entirety. I actually thought I was being quite gracious in the matter and I'm not certain how it would have been more noble not to point out his error. Nevertheless, I apologize if it came across too strong.

 

[DHK]

Not that you will be willing to submit yourself to the Word of God if it disagrees with your tradition but God's Word also says of the evil that befell Job:

Job 42
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:

I await the spin doctor.

I value the words of the Lord our God more than the words of the relatives of Job any day. Surely you don't put trust in the words of the relatives of Job. They were simply comforting Job. What is said is accurately recorded. Does that make it true? No, it does not.

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold. (Job 42:11)

If the verse said that the demons comforted Job concerning the evil that Lord brought upon him, would you still believe it? We are not told anything concerning the character of these acquaintances. Why accept their words over the very words of God given in the first half of the first chapter?

 

[The Archangel]

But why are you giving Job's point of view instead of God's. God's point of view is given in the first few verses which sets the scenario for what follows. It is God that gives permission to Satan. It really doesn't matter what Job says in this context concerning God. It is God that gives Satan permission. We have that scene in heaven, with the very words of God himself.
God's words over-rule Job's words every time!

There is a real hermeneutical problem in your view of this text.

The words of Job and the words of God are not set against each other. It is a deficient hermeneutic that seeks to value some of the words of scripture over all of the words of scripture. For example: There are some that want to take the words of Jesus over the words of Paul. The problem is the words of Jesus are not against the words of Paul--they are complimentary.

In this case, with Job, you have the account being related by a single narrator--so the words of Job and the words of God are penned by the same person and are, therefore, carrying the same weight.

Now the narrator relates the God and Satan made an arrangement. The narrator relates the "behind the scenes" action. The narrator relates God's words and Satan's words. The narrator relates Job's words. The narrator also makes comments. Therefore, because the inspired narrator is relating all of the account, there is no fundamental difference in the words of God, Job, or Satan.

Now, one of the things the inspired narrator attributes to Job is the following statements:

And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”

To the first statement, the inspired narrator says: In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong. To the second statement the same inspired narrator says: In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

So the narrator affirms Job's words here. The narrator says that Job attributes the things that have befallen him to God. That is without question. The narrator comments that Job--in attributing these things, ultimately, to God--did not sin by doing so.

Now, your hermeneutical challenge is that you are seeking to discount only one area of the narrator's writing--which you cannot do and remain faithful to the text. If you discount the one area, such as "in all this Job did not sin with his lips," you, then, must discount the entire account. By discounting one area of the narrator's account you cast doubt on the entire account.

Now, one is free to argue ordination as opposed to direct cause, one is free to argue (rightly, I might add) that God removed His hand of protection from Job. However, one is not free to argue--as you are doing--that one section of the text from the same narrator can be discounted (presumably, because you find it uncomfortable).

It is a truly poor hermeneutic that takes a razor blade to the text.

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

I value the words of the Lord our God more than the words of the relatives of Job any day. Surely you don't put trust in the words of the relatives of Job. They were simply comforting Job. What is said is accurately recorded. Does that make it true? No, it does not.

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold. (Job 42:11)

If the verse said that the demons comforted Job concerning the evil that Lord brought upon him, would you still believe it? We are not told anything concerning the character of these acquaintances. Why accept their words over the very words of God given in the first half of the first chapter?

You will not receive the Word of God from me, so ask Skandelon.

He will tell you what the Bible is teaching in these passages.

He is no Calvinist but he is intelligent enough and has a solid enough hermeneutic to recognize that God's word teaches that God brought this evil upon Job.

Your strange interpretation cannot be backed by ANY reputable commentator or theologian.

You just made it up from nothing and deny the truth of Scripture thereby.

 

[DHK]

1. Did Job sin with his lips? No.
2. Did Job speak only according to his understanding? Yes.
3. Did Job understand what was happening in heaven? No.

Therefore, whose words are more accurate? Job's or God's?
God's words of course.

Remember that inspiration only extends to the accuracy of what is recorded, and that it is recorded exactly the way that God wants it to be recorded. Not everything that is recorded is true.

When Lucifer said: "Thou shalt not surely die." Was this a true statement or a false statement? It was false. But it was accurately recorded. It was inspired. But they were not God's words, though they are the Word of God. See the difference.

The same is true in the story of Job. What Job has to say is not always accurate. Especially at the end of the story when his acquaintances (presumably including his wife who previously said, "curse God and die.") "now comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him."

Am I to believe that testimony that these people of questionable character attribute evil to God? Hardly.

 

[The Archangel]

1. Did Job sin with his lips? No.
2. Did Job speak only according to his understanding? Yes.
3. Did Job understand what was happening in heaven? No.

Did Job sin with his lips? No. That is stated in the text and it is explicit.

Did job speak "only according to his understanding? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.

Did job understand what was happening in heaven? Facts not in evidence as there are no specific statements to this in scripture, therefore this is an assumption on your part.

Therefore, whose words are more accurate? Job's or God's?
God's words of course.

The narrator records both sets of words for us, therefore they are both equally accurate. You are trying to create a false dichotomy between God's words and Job's words and the only way to do this is to do violence to the text and to throw out the doctrine of inspiration.

Remember that inspiration only extends to the accuracy of what is recorded, and that it is recorded exactly the way that God wants it to be recorded. Not everything that is recorded is true.

This is not correct. While it is true that lies are recorded (like Rahab's lies) and those lies are lies, it is not true that those words are any less accurate. There is a purpose in the inspired writers of scripture recording such things as the serve to bolster the main point.

When Lucifer said: "Thou shalt not surely die." Was this a true statement or a false statement? It was false. But it was accurately recorded. It was inspired. But they were not God's words, though they are the Word of God. See the difference.

You are incorrect. Satan's statement was a true statement. The fulfillment was not immediate, but Adam and Eve did die.

Again, you are doing violence to the text to suggest God's words are at odds with the author/narrator of any given text.

The same is true in the story of Job. What Job has to say is not always accurate. Especially at the end of the story when his acquaintances (presumably including his wife who previously said, "curse God and die.") "now comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him."

Am I to believe that testimony that these people of questionable character attribute evil to God? Hardly.

The problem here--as it has been all along--is that the words to which you are referring to are observations by the same narrator who records God's words and Satan's words.

Further, when Job said the Lord has taken away, etc. the narrator affirms that Job is correct. So, while Job may not be accurate in every word he utters, the words in Job 1-2 that I have already posted are accurate, not because Job said them, but because the narrator has attested to their accuracy.

As for attributing evil to God...when you see Ch 42 (and Ch 1, 2) is it not the narrator's words attesting to the fact that God had brought the evil (or calamity) on Job? Certainly. These facts are without dispute. The narrator actually says that very thing.

You are simply wrong because you are making assumptions of the text that simply are not there. Those assumptions are inline with your presuppositions and they do not accurately reflect the text.

The Archangel