John Piper

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell,



Something being created evil would not be a sinful act to the creator if the intent of the creator for making it thus was for ultimately good purposes, for example God meant it for good when Joseph's brothers wickedly betrayed their brother, threw him in a pit, then sold him into slavery. If this was never done God could not have later used Joseph to save many people who were starving due to the famine. Thiis is explicit in this verse, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Geneses 50:20) God predestinated sin that he could bring about the greatest act of love, mercy, and redemption in the act of sending his Son as a sacrifice.

God did not create the evil that happened to Joseph. Neither does scripture tell us that God predestined sin. God allowing evil is not the same thing as predestination.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

I see now that BJ has posted yet another passage claiming it says God punishes people for the actions He compels. But look at Isaiah 10. What does it actually say. The king is punished for his pride, for taking credit for the work of God. See Isaiah 10:15-16! So yet again there is no support for the fiction God punishes people for the actions He compels.

Next, BJ changes the subject, saying since God arranged the fall, that indicates He punishes people for the actions He caused. Not so. Adam volitionally sinned, and the result was the Fall, with everyone suffering the consequence of Adam's sin, i.e. being made sinners in a separated from God spiritually dead state, and having a corrupted human spirit, predisposed to sin. But God did not compel or predestine Adam's sin, Adam chose to sin.

Finally, BJ, says because God created the circumstances where David chose to sin (numbering), God compelled that action. Not so. Our lives provide us with endless opportunities to sin or not to sin. When we sin, we are to confess our transgressions. Here David's pride (glorying in the size of his nation or military is the problem.

In summary, see James 1:13-15, for the biblical perspective on God compelling people to sin, and then punishing them for His actions. It is hogwash!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I see now that BJ has posted yet another passage claiming it says God punishes people for the actions He compels. But look at Isaiah 10. What does it actually say. The king is punished for his pride, for taking credit for the work of God. See Isaiah 10:15-16! So yet again there is no support for the fiction God punishes people for the actions He compels.!

The "work of god" the king was punished for was destroying the Jews in Jerusalem and thinking he was the one who did it when in fact it was God himself. "11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols? (The I here is God who says he did it)12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, (What do you think the "it" here is referring to?) and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:

Next, BJ changes the subject, saying since God arranged the fall, that indicates He punishes people for the actions He caused. Not so. Adam volitionally sinned, and the result was the Fall, with everyone suffering the consequence of Adam's sin, i.e. being made sinners in a separated from God spiritually dead state, and having a corrupted human spirit, predisposed to sin. But God did not compel or predestine Adam's sin, Adam chose to sin..!

No God didn't compel Adam to sin, but did he not make Adam and Eve in such a way that they would sin (including having the serpent being in the garden) and couldn't He have chosen to make them some other way, but He did not in his sovereign choice elect to? Also, the fact that all this sin exists in the world, does it exist against His will, if so How can we be guaranteed sin won't enter Heaven if it entered earth contrary to God's will?

Finally, BJ, says because God created the circumstances where David chose to sin (numbering), God compelled that action. Not so. Our lives provide us with endless opportunities to sin or not to sin. When we sin, we are to confess our transgressions. Here David's pride (glorying in the size of his nation or military is the problem.!

How can you say God did not compel the numbering of the people and not be in contradiction to the verse "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."? The word translated "moved" there means in the Hebrew to "incite, allure, instigate"http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5496.htm. Aren't these synonyms for the word compelled?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

God did not create the evil that happened to Joseph. Neither does scripture tell us that God predestined sin. God allowing evil is not the same thing as predestination.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree God did not create the evil in the brothers heart to do what they did to Joseph, that was already in their flesh nature, but He did indeed predestinate or "predetermine" if you will that it would happen.

 

[Van]

It does not seem to matter what the Bible actually says, that the King was punished for pride, taking credit for what God had done. No, BJ says what this really means is the King was punished for what God compelled him to do. But of course, that assertion differs from what scripture actually says.

Next BJ again makes claims not found it scripture. God allowed Adam to sin, but did not compel him to sin. Pretty straightforward.

Finally I can say God did not compel David to number, because scripture does not say God compelled David to number. Scripture does say David was "incited" to say "Go number..." Exactly who or what did the inciting is not clear. Could be (1) the Lord's anger at Israel, or (2) God allowing Satan to suggest a prideful action, but BJ's third option, "God compelled David" is precluded by James 1:13-15. What is clear is David's action was sinful.

So once again, the claim that God punishes for actions He compels is found nowhere in scripture. Just as I cannot say that because my fleshly lusts urge sinful action, I am compelled by those urges to sin, BJ cannot say whoever or whatever urged David to number compelled him to number. David made a choice, evidently incited in part by his pride and thus was punished for his sinful action.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Next BJ again makes claims not found it scripture. God allowed Adam to sin, but did not compel him to sin. Pretty straightforward..

Brother Van,

I did not say God compelled Adam to sin. Show my quote in which I said that! Adam was predestinated to sin (or if you want to use the word it was predetermined) that Adam would sin. God can predestinate something without being the direct cause of something because there exists secondary causes. Ultimatly however one must conclude God is the first cause of all causes and the first cause of all causes is God's will according to scripture, "according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11). Notice it leaves no room for doubt, God works all things not some things after his will. Do you believe God is the first cause of all causes, if not who is?

Finally I can say God did not compel David to number, because scripture does not say God compelled David to number. Scripture does say David was "incited" to say "Go number..." Exactly who or what did the inciting is not clear. Could be (1) the Lord's anger at Israel, or (2) God allowing Satan to suggest a prideful action, but BJ's third option, "God compelled David" is precluded by James 1:13-15. What is clear is David's action was sinful.

So once again, the claim that God punishes for actions He compels is found nowhere in scripture. Just as I cannot say that because my fleshly lusts urge sinful action, I am compelled by those urges to sin, BJ cannot say whoever or whatever urged David to number compelled him to number. David made a choice, evidently incited in part by his pride and thus was punished for his sinful action.

Simple question, if God did not compel David to number the people, in the verse that states "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1), [U]who is it that moved David against them to number the people?[/U] Answer-God

Also, it says in 1 Chronicles that: “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (21:1)”, thus we see scripture is also very clear elsewhere that Satan is nothing but God’s servant, or better yet His puppet and he does what he is told to do (Job 1:8, etc.). And one cannot deny that these Scriptures in 2nd Samuel very clearly state that it was God who moved David to number Israel and he did so by using Satan per 1 Chronicles 21:1

And yes David was still held accountable and disciplined as what he did was sin regardless of what caused him to do it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree God did not create the evil in the brothers heart to do what they did to Joseph, that was already in their flesh nature, but He did indeed predestinate or "predetermine" if you will that it would happen.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Van]

LOL, if God predestines you number, you are compelled to number. It does not matter how many secondary causes you throw in the path. It is like saying firing a gun does not cause the death, the bullet entering the body and destroying vital stuff caused the death. It is nonsense.

If BJ was not saying Adam was punished for the sins God compelled, why was it offered to support that premise? More nonsense.

Finally BJ seems to ignor what I pointed out about 2 Sam. 24:1. Does it say God incited or urged David to number? Nope. Some translations say "it" referring apparently to God's anger, or "he" apparently referring to Satan. But at the end of the day, God is precluded by James 1:13-15. So BJ says God and ignores James preclusion.

Folks, sound doctrine is consistent with all scripture, and no scripture indicates God punishes people for the actions He compels. None, Zip, Nada.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Folks, sound doctrine is consistent with all scripture, and no scripture indicates God punishes people for the actions He compels. None, Zip, Nada.

God hardened pharaoh's heart to not let His people go, then turn around and sent plagues for him having a hard heart.

 

[Van]

Yet again, an assertion without support in scripture. Were the plagues sent because of Pharaoh having a hard heart. What does scripture actually say? Exodus 9:14-16 God hardened Pharaoh in order to make a lasting statement as to the power of God.

So yet again, an assertion without support in scripture. How many passages have been cited, yet none actually supported the bogus claim that God punishes people for the actions God compels.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Yet again, an assertion without support in scripture. Were the plagues sent because of Pharaoh having a hard heart. What does scripture actually say? Exodus 9:14-16 God hardened Pharaoh in order to make a lasting statement as to the power of God.

So yet again, an assertion without support in scripture. How many passages have been cited, yet none actually supported the bogus claim that God punishes people for the actions God compels.

Even Wikipedia states regarding the plagues, "The reason for the plagues appears to be twofold:[3] to answer Pharaoh's taunt "Who [is] the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?",[4] and to indelibly impress the Israelites with God's power as an object lesson for all time, which was also meant to become known "throughout the world".[5][6]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt

The fact remains if Pharaoh had listened to God initially and let His people go the plagues would have never happened, but God hardened his heart, then subsequently sent the plagues. You don't believe Pharaoh was ever disciplined for not letting His people go, not hearkening to the command of God? "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7). You are asserting Pharaoh did not reap what he sowed, there was no consequence for his disobedience? Absurd! You remind me of Pharaoh, I and other posters have given you ample scripture and logic on this thread proving God has predestinated whatsoever comes to pass, but you reject it all to cling to your free will man is in control doctrines! Perhaps God will open your eyes one day. I am not responding to your folly anymore on this thread.

 

[robustheologian]

God allowing evil is not the same thing as predestination.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

God ordained the allowance of evil. Allowance is the permissive aspect of predestination.

 

[Van]

Once again, BJ refuses to acknowledge that scripture tells us why God hardened Pharaoh's heart and sent the plagues, and instead seeks to support his view using the commentary of Wikipedia.

Next we get another change of argument, claiming my view is not that we reap what we sow. Not so, so again obfuscation and deflection on display. God does not punish us for His actions, but does punish us for our actions, what we sow.

And then BJ closes with yet another ad homenim, thus using a logical fallacy to support his unbiblical view. Read scripture and do not add or read between the lines to alter its message. Do not redefine words, i.e. incite does not mean compel. God means what He says and says what He means and we should stick to God's actual words.

 

[Van]

No support whatever has be cited for the bogus idea that God compels us to sin, and then punishes us for the sin He compelled. None, zip, nada.

Folks, God is just, loving, and merciful.

 

[robustheologian]

No support whatever has be cited for the bogus idea that God compels us to sin, and then punishes us for the sin He compelled. None, zip, nada.

Folks, God is just, loving, and merciful.

This is what we call delusional.

 

[Van]

Anytime you see attacks on the opponent rather than scriptural support for the premise, you can be sure the premise is bogus.

God does not punish people for the actions He compels them to take. God does not punish the son for the sins of the father. God is just, loving and merciful.

Read scripture and do not add or read between the lines to alter its message. Do not redefine words, i.e. incite does not mean compel. God means what He says and says what He means and we should stick to God's actual words.

 

[Dolour]

Read scripture and do not add or read between the lines to alter its message. Do not redefine words, i.e. incite does not mean compel. God means what He says and says what He means and we should stick to God's actual words.

/sign

First up, im a Christian for just a couple months, and have yet to find a Chruch i want to settle with.
...ive been visiting a Presbytorian Church, which are admitted Calvinists, for a couple of weeks now, and have to say that i am baffled on how people are fast to interpret scripture to fit their Worldview, disregardig claims on how scripture is not to be interpreted.
A scheme im all too familiar with, from the realm of secular science...

One or two things for the context: I found faith through science, or how the Bible puts it "the hidden qualities of creation".
Quantum Physics inevitably requires a supreme being, with no way around an supernatural observer, that exists outside of space and time.
I then embarked on a journey through pretty much any believe-contruct available on this planet, with a heavy tendency towards Hinduism, due to its parallels to the realm of physics, and how it describes the known framework of our universe in different terms.
That ultimately led to me investigating the New Age and whats best described as "Mystery Religion" in a broad sense.
In effect its been theese false teachings that led me to Christ, or to be more precise their apparent obsession with Jesus that is pretty much omnipresent.

From this, in itself, arose one of the first problems ive had, and still have, with Calvinism, whose Doctrine teaches "only Scripture", which cannot hold true, since i personally found my way to the Lord before knowing a single Line of Scripture, or even owning a Bible for that matter.

With that being sayd, bear in mind that im new to alot of this(so please be patient with me ), and that i am yet not really influenced by any Doctrines.
What little knowledge ive got stems from what ive read in the Bible, and i just recently started to investigate the teachings of Calvin, which allready has brought up alot of incompatibilities i yet cannot wrap my head around.

For instance, James 1:13 claims God does not tempt man, and 1st Peter 1:2 talks about foreknowledge, as opposed to predestination(whereas knowing the end from the beginning, and being aware of any mans choices, is vastly different from making those decisions in their place).

Another one, which has been frequently stated in this very thread, being Pharo, where i couldnt fail to notice how its beeing ignored that god gave the guy the choice TWICE before "hardening his neck".
Allso, the book of Jeremiah is littered with examples on how God sent his prophets to, again giving people the opportunity to do the right thing, cause the people to turn from their "wicked ways".
This is diametricaly opposed to Calvins teachings, and those are just a couple of the many examples where god demonstrates how man indeed does have the choice.

The real Kicker however was the Guy himself, and some of his writings:
According to the Bible "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" and "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.".
As for point A: ive checked numerous sources on the life of Calvin, and its apparent that he was a murderer and tyrant, who did horrible things in the name of "the one true faith".
So, id definetly consider him a pretty bad tree, looking at how violence and opression is totally opposed to what Jesus tought.
Point B: In Institutio 3 Chap.22 Calvin renders Jesus an ordinary Man, instead of a devine being, using this statement as underlying argument for his predestination Thesis.
That, to someone with my limited knowledge, appears to violate the above mentioned criteria too.

So, without the desire to assault anyones doctrinal believe(i really just want to understand it), how is it that this guy is considered a wealthy source of understanding to begin with?
His whole teachings deny that "God doesent want anyone to perish", that "Jesus died for all(it doesent say the elect or anything)".
Wheres the point i have been missing here?

I hope someone can shed a little light into this confusing darkness...


regards, Dolour

 

[Van]

Hi Dolour, I would be happy to answer any specific questions. But first things first, I am a professing Christian, not a Calvinist or an Arminian, meaning my understanding of what the Bible teaches shares some of their views and has views that differ from both of them. Anything I assert you should verify by studying scripture to see if what I say is true.

Now let me address some of the views you expressed:

1) Sola Scripture or Scripture Alone means to reject extra-biblical teachings, i.e. some tradition of a church, and rely upon scripture alone as the final authority for faith and practice. The bible does indicate God declares his eternal attributes through what He has made, i.e. His creation - the Universe and everything in it. On the other hand, you did not find Jesus without learning of Him at least indirectly from scripture. Perhaps you read articles, saw movies or heard from others about Jesus.

2) Lets deal with "foreknowledge" and predestination one topic at a time.

a) Foreknowledge is the English translation of a Greek word that means "to know beforehand." So if I formulated a plan to go to Alaska last summer, and then next summer I implement that plan and go to Alaska, my trip is according to my foreknowledge. Notice the idea is taking action in the present based on knowledge, such as a plan, in the past. The word has absolute nothing to do with knowing the future, as if God has a divine crystal ball.

b) Predestination refers to God determining beforehand what will occur. And of course, everything He has predestined for the future, He knows will occur. Secondly, if something is predestined by circumstances or attribute or condition, He also knows. Thus knowledge of a specific future event presupposes that future event is predestined by something.​

3) Next, you used the phrase that God "knows the end from the beginning." However, that actual assertion in scripture is God declares the end from the beginning. Here is the issue - If God knows everything that will occur in the future, then the future is fixed, predestined and pre-determined. This is the Calvinist view. The Arminians agree that God knows everything that will occur in the future, but through some mystery, that does not mean the future is exhaustively predestined. Even the Calvinists back away somewhat in that they say God is not the author of sin. Somehow they say either our choice to sin is not predestined or God is not responsible for the sin He predestines, we are.
As you noted, this view is incoherent.

4) You are spot on with regard to scripture teaching fallen mankind is given the choice to sin or seek after God, teaching at least some of us have some ability to seek God, like the men of Matthew 23:13.

5) John Calvin certainly had his flaws, as do all men. But it is a mistake to discredit his view because he was a sinner. We are all sinners, yet we are able to understand at least some of what the Bible teaches and present that to others, like Peter and Paul, and so forth. Better to find fault with Calvin based on his views being inconsistent with scripture.

6) You are correct that "Limited Atonement" (Christ died only for the elect) is mistaken doctrine, in my opinion. Christ died for everyone, He tasted death for everyone, and became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, referring to fallen mankind.

 

[Dolour]

But first things first, I am a professing Christian, not a Calvinist or an Arminian, meaning my understanding of what the Bible teaches shares some of their views and has views that differ from both of them.

I can happily agree with that, and admit that its in line with how i feel.
Thats why my profile says "denominational", i too confess to be a Christian, and agree as well as disagree with some statements from both camps.

On the other hand, you did not find Jesus without learning of Him at least indirectly from scripture. Perhaps you read articles, saw movies or heard from others about Jesus.

That indeed holds true, the fact that supposed "aliens", "ascended masters" and/or deceased "world teachers" etc. are obviously obsessed with discrediting Jesus played a major role.

a) Foreknowledge is the English translation of a Greek word that means "to know beforehand." So if I formulated a plan to go to Alaska last summer, and then next summer I implement that plan and go to Alaska, my trip is according to my foreknowledge.

Thnx for the clarification, from my understanding it was exactly the opposite way around, regarding predestination(my "Christianeese" vocabulary is still rather poor obviously).

b) Predestination refers to God determining beforehand what will occur. And of course, everything He has predestined for the future, He knows will occur. Secondly, if something is predestined by circumstances or attribute or condition, He also knows. Thus knowledge of a specific future event presupposes that future event is predestined by something.

Ok, i had the inpression that this term refers to actions predeterminating the outcome.
Thnx again for clarification.

3) Next, you used the phrase that God "knows the end from the beginning." However, that actual assertion in scripture is God declares the end from the beginning. Here is the issue - If God knows everything that will occur in the future, then the future is fixed, predestined and pre-determined. This is the Calvinist view.

From a Physicists POV thats pretty much the case. We expirience time as a linear event, while a beeing outside of the 4 dimensional construct would be able to observe any given point in time, throughout its entirety.
From the beginning to the end, so to speak.
Now, heres the point: Having knowledge about how your goina deceide, due to the ability to observe the entire dimension of time, similar to you being able to observe all 3 dimensions of a cube at once, does not nessesarily include any responsibility for its outcome.
Hence, God is very well able to "foresee" weather your goina repent or not, which on the other hand doesent mean he causes you to.
...which basically is one of the main problems i do have with the calvinistic interpretation ive encountered so far.

The Arminians agree that God knows everything that will occur in the future, but through some mystery, that does not mean the future is exhaustively predestined.

Well, my scientific POV tells me exactly that however.
Einstein sayd "Time is only there so everything doesent happen at once.", which from a perspective outside of 4d space(what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height), would pretty much be the case, as hard to grasp as it is.

Even the Calvinists back away somewhat in that they say God is not the author of sin. Somehow they say either our choice to sin is not predestined or God is not responsible for the sin He predestines, we are.
As you noted, this view is incoherent.

Well, good to know im not alone in recognising this inconsistency.
However this, god being ultimately responsible for sin due to his predetermination, is exactly the view of this Church im visiting theese days.

4) You are spot on with regard to scripture teaching fallen mankind is given the choice to sin or seek after God, teaching at least some of us have some ability to seek God, like the men of Matthew 23:13.

Awsome, im not crazy. Thnx again for verifying.

5) John Calvin certainly had his flaws, as do all men. But it is a mistake to discredit his view because he was a sinner. We are all sinners, yet we are able to understand at least some of what the Bible teaches and present that to others, like Peter and Paul, and so forth. Better to find fault with Calvin based on his views being inconsistent with scripture.

Good point, however his display of not being the archetype christian sure made me look at it with some more reservation.
All the Calvinists ive talked to so far seem to be pretty obsessed with his techings tho, therefore my curiousity.
Institutio 3 Chap.22, and the denial of Christs supernatural origin, sure made me question him tho...

6) You are correct that "Limited Atonement" (Christ died only for the elect) is mistaken doctrine, in my opinion. Christ died for everyone, He tasted death for everyone, and became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, referring to fallen mankind.

Allright, once again im not alone in my opinion here.
Thnx alot for the lenghy post, and adressing of theese points. :thumbs:


God bless, Dolour

 

[Van]

Hi Dolour, just two points of clarification, if God predestines an event, that would include the outcome of the event. Say if God hardened the hearts of some unbelieving Jews, that would predestine that they would not be open to the gospel, and unless God changed their heart again, the outcome would be never being saved.

As far as "being outside of time" we do not know if sequence exists, i.e. some sort of "spiritual" rather than physical time. I know its a popular view, but we cannot support it from scripture. Thus, while it might or might not be true, it is extra-biblical.