An anti-Calvinist conundrum

Whatever,

We move from a faulty premise to a generalization based upon too small of a sample to support a universal theological application.

We almost always take God's Word as applied to a particular Biblical persona and immediately apply that to ourselves. That can always happen accidently. Somewhere an adulterer repents and goes through restoration like David. This does not indicate that we need to committ adultery to get closer to God.

 

No one but you has suggested anthing remotely like comitting adultery to get closer to God. No need to get silly. Apparently you've still missed the context so allow me to provide some.

The assertion was made that God does not ordain man's sinful actions. I only needed to provide one example to the contrary to disprove this notion and I provided three. Those three examples alone prove nothing except that the original assertion is false. I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. As far as I know, no one here has even attempted to show that these passages mean something different than what they say. Would you like to try?

 

Negative, I did not miss the context.

Nor would I like to walk into a falsehood. Would you like to try?

How have you been able to show that God ordained evil? Ordain denotes predestined or appointed. How could you prove that God predestined sin?*


* Special cases are often taken out of context to indicate that God causes sin (1. the crucifixion), I do not know of any where that God actually states that He causes (forordains) sin. (2. sometimes people will read passages of God's wrath out of context. Here God is clear that He is bringing wrath - we might interpret that as His bringing wrath, but the context is not that clear.)

 

Further,

My example of David is a specification. IF you can find an example of God causing (predestinating) sin, then an example is also a specification.

I used David for a specific example of drawing a generalization from one or more specifications. This was a "Hasty Generalization" or an "Unrepresentative Sample". Either way you are using the same argumentation that I used with David.

You will have to show that GOD says that HE predestines evil. That is a world away from His allowing evil and then using that evil for good.

See reference cited above.

 

The crucifixion (Acts 2:23, 3:18, 4:28 make his foreordination of this sin explicit, and answer your asterisk); Joseph's sale by his brothers was specifically intended by God (Gne 50:20 where "it" can only be the sale, not the outcome of the sale).

In addition you have the clear biblical teaching that all things are under the control of God (Psa 115:3; Eph 1:11; etc) and "all things" must include sin.

 

I've already given three examples where God says in His word exactly what you are asking for. You steadfastly refuse to address any of them, and I really don't blame you, but it is disingenuous on your part to continue to ask for something that I've already provided. Again, I've made no generalizations, hasty or otherwise. I've only disproved the statement that God never ordains sin.

 

I will re-read your referenced verses again. This time in a different translation.

But, I do not twist His Word. Nor have I twisted your words. Your insincere method of argumentation is what I have addressed. Specifically, I am making the faulty assumption (spurred on by your verbal attack) that you always attack your opponent and take God's Word out of context. Fair usage of logic has really hurt your cause.

You are using faulty logic. Three examples of God specifically doing something DO NOT show that God specifically CAUSED SIN. And one should not make a GENERALIZATION out of three examples.

EXAMPLE: Last week three vehicle accidents were caused by drunk drivers, therefore all accidents were caused by drunk drivers. That is EXACTLY the logic you are using when artributing sin to God.

 

Whatever,

I am trying to help you out here. But, you are making an assumption based upon the text(s) that seems to be a stretch.

I believe these are the verses you are making your assumption upon?

I will re-read the texts (in context) using original languages and the KJV later, maybe that will give credence to what you are assuming.

 

Someone else said that God took what Joseph's brothers intended for evil and turned it for good. I pointed out that this is not how the Bible described it. The Bible uses the same word ("intended") to describe both what Joseph's brothers did and God's participation in the same events. I pointed out a couple of other instances where the Bible uses similar language to describe God's participation in different events. My intent was simply to demonstrate that the "used it for good" argument is deficient in these cases.

I did not mean to attack you, but I stand by what I said. It's really frustrating when I keep saying that I am not making any generalizations and you keep saying that I am making faulty generalizations. I have not said that God causes all sins. I am not saying that. Please don't accuse me of saying that.

 

ESV Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will ,

KJV Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand :

ESV Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.


God purposes EVERYTHING... every car accident also...

 

Does that mean that God designed the freeway systems, and the cars the kill, and the.....? You get the message.