Calvinism and Free Will

[TCGreek]

Here's a Scripture to meditate on:

If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it? (Amos 3:6).

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Did God go to sleep and then opened His eyes, only to discover that man had sinned?

So you actually BELIEVE that I am implying or intimating that with my post?

Have you checked your reference of Luke 22:22?

This has NOTHING to do with any support for the claim that God decreed that there be sin. This is referring to the betrayal of Christ and the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Stating God decrees that there be sin again is a reflection of the misunderstanding of the nature of Divine decrees. God does NOT decree that there be sin. God decrees to PERMIT sin. But the passage itself offers a violation of the text at best to support this claim.

Did you not clearly read I stated that God decreed to PERMIT sin? Surely you read that. Is this question actually constructed for discovery after my clear statement?

 

[TCGreek]

So you actually BELIEVE that I am implying or intimating that with my post?

Did you not clearly read I stated that God decreed to PERMIT sin? Surely you read that. Is this question actually constructed for discovery after my clear statement?

Sorry for the apparent misunderstanding, but I really see no difference in your statements, for they all come out saying the same thing. Think about it!

 

[TCGreek]

In other words, If God did not decree for there to be sin, He would not have decreed to permit sin.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Here's a Scripture to meditate on:

If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it? (Amos 3:6).

Yes, let's, this time in context.

1Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,

2You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

4Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing?

5Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?

6Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Ah yes, this is a prophecy against Israel and the pronouncement of divine discipline them as a nation for their rebellion.

Proof texting is one of the most common errors that results in bad doctrine.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

In other words, If God did not decree for there to be sin, He would not have decreed to permit sin.

No, those are YOUR others words. Mine were and are quite clear.

God decreed to PERMIT sin.

 

[TCGreek]

Yes, let's, this time in context.



Ah yes, this is a prophecy against Israel and the pronouncement of divine discipline them as a nation for their rebellion.

Proof texting is one of the most common errors that results in bad doctrine.

1. God permitted Satan to tempt Job, but Job attributes everything that happened to him to the Hands of God (Job 1:21; 2:6; 42:11).

2. Was Job wrong for saying that?

 

[TCGreek]

No, those are YOUR others words. Mine were and are quite clear.

God decreed to PERMIT sin.

With due respect, you would have to square with that.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

1. God permitted Satan to tempt Job, but Job attributes everything that happened to him to the Hands of God (Job 1:21; 2:6; 42:11).

2. Was Job wrong for saying that?

Obviously Job had a correct understanding of the nature of Divine Sovereignty. God used the evil of Satan to accomplish His Divine purpose. God was not assigned evil or sin but Sovereignty.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

With due respect, you would have to square with that.

I already have but for your sake I will.
God decreed to permit sin. You wish to state:

In other words, If God did not decree for there to be sin, He would not have decreed to permit sin.

Your statement makes God the agent of sin. God is the agent of the Decree, the sinner is the agent of the sin.

My guess is that the placement and function of secondary causes in the Divine Decrees causes a misalignment in trying to harmonize the two realities of Divine Sovereignty and Human Volition.

To many if it is a secondary cause it cannot be an agent.

 

[TCGreek]

Your statement makes God the agent of sin. God is the agent of the Decree, the sinner is the agent of the sin.
.

Then the issue is with your understanding of God decreeing something. If from my statement you get that God is an agent of sin, then you proved your failure to understand what is meant by God decreeing a thing.

 

[Rippon]

Amen , TCG . In Job's case the agent of the decree was Satan . He was God's emissary . God Himself was not the agent .

 

[JustChristian]

Amen , TCG . In Job's case the agent of the decree was Satan . He was God's emissary . God Himself was not the agent .

So when Hitler ordered the commanding officers of the death camps to kill the Jews he wasn't responsible? The camp officers were responsible.

 

[npetreley]

Amen , TCG . In Job's case the agent of the decree was Satan . He was God's emissary . God Himself was not the agent .

That's what I've been saying all along about satan, Adam and Eve. I've said it so many ways even little kids could understand it. Only those looking to stir up trouble and point fingers can twist it to mean something else.

The only thing I would add to that is WHY did God decree sin? For His glory, of course.

 

[npetreley]

Don't attribute silence to anything, Q. Some of us have participated in this debate long before your pompous, condescending attitude (and that's exactly how you come across, BTW) showed up. But it gets tiring and time consuming, and I need the rest and also the time to do other more fruitful things. Q, do not get too overconfident in this little skirmish where you triumphantly rub it in other people' faces that they are getting "frustrated" by the inherent "weakness" of their theology. Do you really think that your postings here are going to rid the world of the evil Calvinists? Go on thinking that, little Q. Meanwhile, you should chew on some articles by John Piper who can say and teach it better than most of us:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/

Thanks for the links. Piper makes arguments similar to mine, and does so in even stronger language:

What is apparent here is that God has the right and the power to restrain the sins of secular rulers. When he does, it is his will to do it. And when he does not, it is his will not to. Which is to say that sometimes God wills that their sins be restrained and sometimes he wills that they [their sins] increase more than if he restrained them.

...and...

For example, God meant to put the sons of Eli to death. Therefore he willed that they not listen to their father's counsel: "Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. And he said to them, `Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people? No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating. If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?' But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for [BECAUSE] the Lord desired to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:22-25).

Why would the sons of Eli not give heed to their father's good counsel? The answer of the text is "because the Lord desired to put them to death."

Which one of you wants to bring a charge against God because He didn't behave the way you want Him to?

 

[youngmom4]

Didn't you see the text? God didn't just allow lies. The scripture says, "The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets". HAS PUT. Not "HAS ALLOWED TO BE PUT".

1 Kings 22
2 Chronicles 18

Ok, 1Kings 22:19 Micaiah, said, "Therefore, hear the word of the Lord, I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.

Since no one's ever been to Heaven and back 'cept Jesus, this has to be a vision or a parable, something along those lines. Now, you quoted v. 23, which is still part of the quotation, so it is Micaiah speaking, not God. He was dealing with a rebellious king who was about to imprison him for speaking God's word. So he says,
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you."

Duh...he was trying to tell this idiot that his false prophets didn't have a clue, they were liars, and God was going to use them to bring the king down. Read the whole context, not just the part that supports your point of view. :thumbs:

 

[npetreley]

Ok, 1Kings 22:19 Micaiah, said, "Therefore, hear the word of the Lord, I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.

Since no one's ever been to Heaven and back 'cept Jesus, this has to be a vision or a parable, something along those lines.

Parable? So is this a parable, too?

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

A vision, obviously. But you traumatize the text by turning into something other than a vision of what really happened. You read this text under the assumption that God would never approve such a plan and even take responsibility for it. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume it's a "parable". So tell me, why would God give him a parable where God does something God would never do? What the heck would that accomplish? Your whole analysis is total nonsense.

The bottom line is simple. Is the text inspired or not? Is it a record of what happened, or symbols that we must interpret to mean the opposite of what happened (that the LORD would never actually approve the lying spirit plan)? Do you really want to go there? Did satan really approach the LORD, or is that a vision of symbolism? If you want to do that much violence to the text, be my guest, but your attempt to change the meaning in order to vindicate God of something He has a right to do is misguided.

Now, you quoted v. 23, which is still part of the quotation, so it is Micaiah speaking, not God. He was dealing with a rebellious king who was about to imprison him for speaking God's word. So he says,
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you."

Duh...he was trying to tell this idiot that his false prophets didn't have a clue, they were liars, and God was going to use them to bring the king down. Read the whole context, not just the part that supports your point of view. :thumbs:

Here's the whole context...

19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne

Did he really see it or not? I trust the text means what it says. He saw it (in a vision, obviously).

and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The LORD said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the LORD said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.”

You can't get around the plain language of, "The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours. No amoung of speculation about parables, visions, and twisting the meaning of other parts of the text can negate this phrase. You make the real prophet the liar! Either he told the truth when he said, The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, or he was lying just as much as the enemy prophets were.

Either trust the Bible, or change it to suit yourself, but I trust the Bible.
.

 

[youngmom4]

Parable? So is this a parable, too?



A vision, obviously. But you traumatize the text by turning into something other than a vision of what really happened. You read this text under the assumption that God would never approve such a plan and even take responsibility for it. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume it's a "parable". So tell me, why would God give him a parable where God does something God would never do? What the heck would that accomplish? Your whole analysis is total nonsense.

The bottom line is simple. Is the text inspired or not? Is it a record of what happened, or symbols that we must interpret to mean the opposite of what happened (that the LORD would never actually approve the lying spirit plan)? Do you really want to go there? Did satan really approach the LORD, or is that a vision of symbolism? If you want to do that much violence to the text, be my guest, but your attempt to change the meaning in order to vindicate God of something He has a right to do is misguided.



Here's the whole context...



Did he really see it or not? I trust the text means what it says. He saw it (in a vision, obviously).




You can't get around the plain language of, "The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours. No amoung of speculation about parables, visions, and twisting the meaning of other parts of the text can negate this phrase. The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours. Either trust the Bible, or change it to suit yourself, but I trust the Bible.
.

Ok, I said it was a vision or a parable...you are probably right that a vision is more likely in this context. I trust the Bible also, and it says these words were spoken by a man, one who was probably extremely frustrated at that point in time. I've read both passages, and both refer to the Lord putting a deceiving spirit in the mouth of "these your prophets". Ok, if they're king Ahab's prophets, they're false prophets, which means they had a lying spirit from the get-go because false prophets can't do anything but die. So, God is merely using these prophets to serve His purpose. He had no need to "put" a spirit there that was already present because these were false prophets. The language is simply that of a true prophet trying one last time to warn the king of what will happen because he listens to his false prophets.

Just a note...my commentary in my Bible on the 2 Chron 18:22 verse says that "The deceiving spirit is a picture of the prophets' entire way of life-telling the king only what he wanted to hear, not what he needed to hear." It also says "God confirmed their plans to lie as a means to remove Ahab from the throne." And I didn't read that till after I wrote my post, so I don't think I'm too far off. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Thanks for the links. Piper makes arguments similar to mine, and does so in even stronger language:



...and...



Which one of you wants to bring a charge against God because He didn't behave the way you want Him to?

I'll toss in my nickle.

No one is bringing a 'charge' against God, it is brought against YOU attributing to God what should not be.

For example, God meant to put the sons of Eli to death. Therefore he willed that they not listen to their father's counsel:

God DID mean for Eli's sons to die. However it was not because He determined their death arbitrarily (as in before either had done good or evil). They were priests and KNEW God, His majesty, His glory, His judgment, even His word and still they continued in sin and still unrepentant. They even knew of His mercy, His grace, and His forgiveness being priests and witnesses for the sacrifices of atonement. Knowing all this (truth) and rejecting it for their lies God gives them over to their sin. Rom 1:18-33, 2 Thes 2 10-12.

He is trying (much like you) to make the word 'desired' mean something it should not. After they had continued to reject truth for A LONG TIME (otherwise why did God not kill them as priests on day one?) that God gave them over to their sin and in so doing determined to bring forth Judgment upon them which is why God would not allow them to heed their fathers rebuke. They had ALREADY gone to far, much like Eli had by not saying something earlier when he first knew of it. God desired their death in that God was bringing forth His judgment upon their sin. However, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but He is just and righteous to do it.

So the last part of the 2 Sam passage given can be read thus: they did not listen to the voice of their father because the Lord had already decided to judge them.

"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. And he said to them, `Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people? No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating. If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?' But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:22-25).

Why would the sons of Eli not give heed to their father's good counsel? The answer of the text is "because the Lord desired to put them to death."

But why did God desire to kill them? This is where both you and Piper miss the boat (so to speak) in that you bring presupposition to the text. The answer is becuase they would not believe the truth set before them by God that they might be saved and therefore God gave them over to believe their lies. They were given truth and they rejected for their pleasure in unrighteousness. They, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only continued there in, but had pleasure in them that do likewise. Thus they continued in their sin together.

 

[Allan]

Ok, I said it was a vision or a parable...you are probably right that a vision is more likely in this context. I trust the Bible also, and it says these words were spoken by a man, one who was probably extremely frustrated at that point in time. I've read both passages, and both refer to the Lord putting a deceiving spirit in the mouth of "these your prophets". Ok, if they're king Ahab's prophets, they're false prophets, which means they had a lying spirit from the get-go because false prophets can't do anything but die. So, God is merely using these prophets to serve His purpose. He had no need to "put" a spirit there that was already present because these were false prophets. The language is simply that of a true prophet trying one last time to warn the king of what will happen because he listens to his false prophets.

Just a note...my commentary in my Bible on the 2 Chron 18:22 verse says that "The deceiving spirit is a picture of the prophets' entire way of life-telling the king only what he wanted to hear, not what he needed to hear." It also says "God confirmed their plans to lie as a means to remove Ahab from the throne." And I didn't read that till after I wrote my post, so I don't think I'm too far off. :thumbs:

You know, there is nothing wrong with taking these verses literally either. Since prophesy is derived by visions/dreams or being spoken to via supernatural means (at least for those how are not intentally faking it) it is not unlikely if not exactly what God did for those who claimed to be His prophets but were not. The lying spirit could very well have been specific to this occassion in that God allowed the spririt to speak to the prophets exactly what they wanted to hear (much like the 'seducing spirits' mentioned in the NT). They wanted to tell the king exactly what he wanted to hear and not what God desired to say, so God gives them exactly what they desire, a different spirit of prophesy (false) to satify their lusts. But for a specific reason which was to prove they were false, to establish who was a TRUE Prophet of God, and to bring forth God's judgment. He doesn't do anything just because He can. He has a purpose.

God did much the same for the Israelites when they wanted a King and God said "No". They insisted and God gave them exactly what they wanted, but it was contrary to what was best for them (notice I didn't say contrary to Gods will). Since they would not listen to the truth and God allowed them to have their error.

God did not leave Ahab nor the CHildren of Israel without the truth. I dare say God sent them the truth via the greatest prophets of their time and in so doing they were faced with two options which God gave them - the truth and the lie. They still had to choose which one to beleive.