Question for the Non-Sovereigntists

Eric B · Jan 2, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But first let me address the issue of sovereignty. I think sovereignty is defined in Eph 1:11: God is the one who "works all things after the counsel of His will."

Notice the following:
All things -- you cannot leave anything out of "all things" and still have all things; therefore, "salvation of man" is one of all things.

works -- this is an active verb. It very clearly teaches control, not reaction. To work all thing is to bring about or to effect.

after the counsel of His will -- This is the controlling issue for the working of all things: the counsel (boulen -- intention, decision, purpose) or his will. There is nothing that can be ascribed to anything other than the will of God.

It is a not a matter of man defining it; it is a matter of how God said it would be. I think the issue is clear: God is either “working all things after the counsel of his own will” or there is something (the “free will” of man in salvation??) that is outside of the working out his will. Thus, those who deny the sovereignty of God in salvation believes, by definition of Scripture, that God is not in control of “all things” and therefore is a non-sovereigntist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But my point is that if God ordained that man would have some free will, then He is still "working all things after the counsel of His will". The problem is your definition of "all things...including man's salvation" assumes determining each person who is saved OR lost, and thus creating the lost just to punish them eternally for "His good pleasure" even though this contradicts other scriptures. But as He is the one who set up the whole "salvation of man" scheme in the first place, you cannot say it is not sovereign, unless you think "sovereignty" is nothing more than Him showing off His ability to sends whoever He wants to Hell just because He can. But God does not have to show off anything, and this is not what He defines as "glorifying Himself".

Pastor Larry · Jan 2, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
But my point is that if God ordained that man would have some free will, then He is still "working all things after the counsel of His will".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But your point misses what seems obvious to me -- that once God gives up something, he no longer controls all things. He has ceded that control to man. Thus, even if he cedes one thing to man, the "all things" is no longer "all things."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The problem is your definition of "all things...including man's salvation" assumes determining each person who is saved OR lost, and thus creating the lost just to punish them eternally for "His good pleasure" even though this contradicts other scriptures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You assume here a supralapsarian position which I do not hold. I think God created all, then decreed the fall, then decreed to provide atonement, then decreed to save some. I do not believe that God created the lost to punish them eternally for "his good pleasure." However, I think the satisfaction of his holy righteousness is accomplished by eternal destruction. I think your problem with what I said is that you don't want all things to include salvation, which is the very context of the verse in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But as He is the one who set up the whole "salvation of man" scheme in the first place... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this (even the part I deleted for the sake of space). My question is to you: Why are you disagreeing with what God has set up? Since he has set it up, why do you feel constrained to reject what he has clearly declared to be in favor of what you think is consistent with God? I do not ask that to be inflammatory. I am quite serious. It seems totally inconsistent to me that you talk of what God has set up while rejecting what God said he has set up.

Siegfried · Jan 2, 2002

Concerning how "nothing outside the will of God caused the rape of this child":

As offensive as that crime is, it cannot compare with the greatest crime in all human history, the murder of Jesus. Concerning that crime, Peter preaching in Acts 2:23, says that Jesus was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

Certainly we can see in that crime how God used it to further his glory and our good. Though the good that results from other reprehensible crimes may not be as visible to us, God's ability to bring that about is not negated by our ignorance.

Nelson · Jan 3, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nelson:If I am allowed to carry this assertion to a logical conclusion, then the rape of an 8-year-old boy by a wicked man is: (1) Not outside of God's will, (2) Can be ascribed to God's effectual working, presumably in the heart of the rapist, and (3) Nothing outside of God's will caused the rape of this child.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Larry:1. Yes ... not outside of God's will.2. Probably described as God allowing the individual to do what he will according to Rom 1 where sexual depravity is the result of God giving man over to his desires.3. Yes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From the above answers, under the assumption that #2 is yes, it can be concluded that, in the example given, it is God’s will for this 8-year-old child to be raped. If it be so that this rape is God’s will, then it can be assumed that the event of the rape was a predetermined event by God, an event which, seeing that God is omniscient and sovereign, is inevitable and must of necessity occur. Since it was God who predetermined the rape to occur then we can further surmise that God has personally and actively worked all things - the circumstances in which the rape occurs and the specific individuals involved, that is, the rapist and the raped - in order for this event to necessarily occur (in accordance with Larry’s statement that the word “works” in Eph. 1:11 “is an active verb. It very clearly teaches control, not reaction. To work all thing is to bring about or to effect." In other words, it can be reasonably stated that God worked directly in the circumstances and through the individuals involved in order to specifically “bring about or to effect” the raping of the 8-year-old child. This seems to be a consistent assessment of Larry’s position. Am I correct?

I am aware that Larry did not answer directly to #2 but qualified his answer, therefore, I am only assuming that between “yes” and “no,” since he did answer “probably,” his answer would be “yes.” It is noted that in his explanation here, he states that God allows the individual to sin, which seems to render God passive in the event. However, it would seem inconsistent with his assertion that “if God works all things after the counsel of his own will then I think that is what he does” (Emphasis mine). Taking his assertion in context with the example of the rape of a child, if the rape is in accord with God’s will (and Larry agreed it was as his answer to points 1 and 3 clearly demonstrate) then it is what He does, which goes beyond merely allowing.

Again, with respect to Larry’s affirmation of point three, God’s will is the cause of the rape. And since nothing that happens is outside of what God wills, it may be concluded that God’s will is the first cause of the rape, i.e. irrespective of the intent of the rapist, whatever blame he may deserve or whatever place in the chain of cause is attributed to him, God’s will is the primary cause why the rape occurred. If the above does not logically follow, please advise specifically and point directly to where I have misunderstood.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Let me pose the question this way: Is it God's will that a family should gang up on one of its members to sell him to get him out of the family?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Definitely, no.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Should God allow the killing of children?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not necessarily, but He does allow it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Should God will the brutal torture and murder of one child? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unequivocally, no.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Should God inflict medical problems on people? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not necessarily, but it must be admitted he does so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Thanks for the compliment but this was actually Paul's explanation of divine sovereignty ... and he got it from the Holy Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am of the opinion it is Larry’s explanation of what the Bible asserts, which is not necessarily what the Bible means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nelson: ...such an evil event as the rape of a child can occur without impugning God's holy character.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Larry: To do so would take a much greater mind than I have. God has not revealed to us the infinite perfections or the interworkings of his mind. His thoughts and ways are above ours. I think it is outside the place of man to try to "figure it out." We must simply take God at what he says and live accordingly. God's character is not impugned because our minds are too small to comprehend his plan. I would be careful asserting otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand Larry as saying that he has no idea how to explain the rape of a child without impugning God’s character or, in other words, any explanation he could give for the evil event would impugn upon God’s character (i.e. although Larry believes God’s character, in reality, is not impugned, nevertheless, he has no idea how it is not impugned).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The bigger problem for you is to explain why the verse doesn't mean what it says, if indeed you are disagreeing with the verse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect, I do believe what the verse means to say. I don’t agree that the verse means to say what Larry believes it means to say.

Question for clarification: Does Eph. 1:11 mean God wills all things or that God works all things?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Pastor Larry · Jan 3, 2002

Great. I am glad you answered these questions. I have skipped the rest of your posts because here, you have admitted your own argument is fallacious. Consider the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PL: Let me pose the question this way: Is it God's will that a family should gang up on one of its members to sell him to get him out of the family? Nelson: Definitely, no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God did this in Gen 38-50 where Joseph was sold by his brothers in order that he might “bring about this present result” … the saving of the family from the famine (Gen 50:20). In other words, you are denying an explicit statement of Scripture to assert “Definitely no” with regards to this question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PL: Should God allow the killing of children? Nelson: Not necessarily, but He does allow it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice the logical inconsistency: Should he allow it? Not necessarily but he does. That does not even make sense. God does something he shouldn’t? Isn’t that a sin?

For scriptural, note Job, where God allowed the killing of all seven of his children, and Job attributes it to the hand of God (Job 2:10).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PL: Should God will the brutal torture and murder of one child? Nelson: Unequivocally, no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Acts 2:23, we read that the brutal torture and murder of Jesus was because he was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Clearly, your objection (“Unequivocally no”) contradicts an explicit statement of Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PL: Should God inflict medical problems on people? Nelson: Not necessarily, but it must be admitted he does so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy … where to start here. There are too many examples in Scripture for this. Start with Paul in 2 Cor 12 where the thorn in the flesh was not taken away by God. How about Job mentioned above. And I could go on and on.

This is what I mean when I say that your theology is not driven by Scripture. Your ideas about God and what he does are driven by your own mind and what you think he should or should not do according to your thinking. The reality is that we must accept Scripture, not our own minds.

As for your last question, God works all things according to the purpose of his will. Very often, the answers are right in the text of SCripture, if we only read and accept what it says.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

Eric B · Jan 3, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But your point misses what seems obvious to me -- that once God gives up something, he no longer controls all things. He has ceded that control to man. Thus, even if he cedes one thing to man, the "all things" is no longer "all things." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You phrase it as "giving up" something, but I don't see it that way. I believe what Nelso was alluding to in his Question about "will" and "work". "God works all things according to the purpose of his will". That doesn't necesarily mean that He directly wills everything, but everything that does happen works for His purpose. (Rom.8:28) How exactly it all fits together we do not know now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You assume here a supralapsarian position which I do not hold. I think God created all, then decreed the fall, then decreed to provide atonement, then decreed to save some. I do not believe that God created the lost to punish them eternally for "his good pleasure." However, I think the satisfaction of his holy righteousness is accomplished by eternal destruction. I think your problem with what I said is that you don't want all things to include salvation, which is the very context of the verse in question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I didn't know who was "supra" or "infra" here. With all the rampant quoting of Romans 9 to prove the lost are "vessels of wrath" due to "His good pleasure", it seems the supra position was what people believed. In fact, on the other board I debate on, Alliance Message Board, which definitely leans to the supra position, one person argued that the infra position is inconsistent and thus halfway to Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism. He used all the same philosophical arguments used against free will. So it seems the supra position is consistant with a limited atonement.
"All things including salvation" taken to mean a determination of INDIVIDUAL salvation creates too many problems, and once again, it is better to leave how exactly it all fits together to Him.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> My question is to you: Why are you disagreeing with what God has set up? Since he has set it up, why do you feel constrained to reject what he has clearly declared to be in favor of what you think is consistent with God? I do not ask that to be inflammatory. I am quite serious. It seems totally inconsistent to me that you talk of what God has set up while rejecting what God said he has set up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because I do not believe God has "set up" what you say He "says" He set up. We have our interpretations of scripture and the challenge is that these interpretations should be made by scripture themselves. Your position reads into scripture alot of supposed "implications" about God's sovereignty that are just not delineated there, and we are not even asked to posit these implications.

Nelson · Jan 4, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Great. I am glad you answered these questions. I have skipped the rest of your posts because here, you have admitted your own argument is fallacious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect, I think it would be important for Larry to answer the major portion of my post, which he skipped because I have demonstrated that the reasonable conclusion his statements lead to is that God is, specifically in the example cited, the first cause of the raping of an 8-year-old boy, and by extension, the author of sin.

In any event, as I respond to Larry, I leave the judgment of whose argument is fallacious to the readers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Consider the following:
PL: Let me pose the question this way: Is it God's will that a family should gang up on one of its members to sell him to get him out of the family?
Nelson: Definitely, no.
PL: God did this in Gen 38:50 where Joseph was sold by his brothers in order that he might “bring about this present result” … the saving of the family from the famine (Gen 50:20). In other words, you are denying an explicit statement of Scripture to assert “Definitely no” with regards to this question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, God is good and has no intention of doing that which is sinful or evil, therefore, God would not acquiesce to the evil done by Joseph’s brothers. Second, nowhere do the Scriptures state that the acts of Joseph’s brothers against him were God’s will. It was an event through which God maneuvered to work out his purposes but it was not an event He determined would occur. This is a good example of Eph. 1:11 wherein God did not will all things but, worked all things. The intent of Gen. 50:20 confirms this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
PL: Should God allow the killing of children.
Nelson: Not necessarily, but He does allow it.
PL: Notice the logical inconsistency: Should he allow it? Not necessarily but he does. That does not even make sense. God does something he shouldn’t? Isn’t that a sin? For scriptural, note Job, where God allowed the killing of all seven of his children, and Job attributes it to the hand of God (Job 2:10).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no contradiction in my answer. In practical experience, many of us do something in certain instances, which in the normal course of things we would not do and are not compelled to do.

Note how Larry asked the question: "Should God allow the killing of children?" Larry is asking whether God is obligated or is expected to allow the killing of children. Accordingly, I have answered the question.

In the first place, my answer does not convey the idea that God is doing something he shouldn’t. I don’t see how you read that into the answer. If anyone else does, please advise how. In the second place, God was under no obligation nor was there the need to expect God to allow Satan to persecute Job even though, in fact, this is what He did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
PL: Should God will the brutal torture and murder of one child?
Nelson: Unequivocally, no.
PL: In Acts 2:23, we read that the brutal torture and murder of Jesus was because he was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Clearly, your objection (“Unequivocally no”

contradicts an explicit statement of Scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is never God’s will to torture, rape, or murder any child since, as James declares by divine inspiration, “God cannot be tempted with evil” (Jam. 1:13).

In the first place, God predetermined to work out salvation through the evil done against sinful men as He did with Joseph. In the second place, the will of God that Christ be crucified was conditioned upon Adam’s transgression; it was not His perfect will insofar as His perfect will was that man would never commit and experience sin, unless one believes that God made man for the express purpose that he sin.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
PL: Should God inflict medical problems on people?
Nelson: Not necessarily, but it must be admitted he does so.
PL: Boy … where to start here. There are too many examples in Scripture for this. Start with Paul in 2 Cor 12 where the thorn in the flesh was not taken away by God. How about Job mentioned above. And I could go on and on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again the question is, “Should God inflict medical problems on people?” And, again, I have answered appropriately to the question. God is neither obligated nor should it be expected of God to inflict sickness on people. That he does is seen in the plagues of Egypt.

Maybe there are "too many examples" to support Larry's contention but, unfortunately, his reference to Paul and Job are not appropriate examples. In the former, it is not specified what exactly is Paul’s thorn in the flesh; therefore, to assert it to be a sickness is mere conjecture. In addition, whatever the thorn was, it is explicit that it was "a messenger of Satan," and not something imposed by God. In the latter, the Bible shows that it was Satan and not God who inflicted sickness on Job, although God permitted it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for your last question, God works all things according to the purpose of his will. Very often, the answers are right in the text of Scripture, if we only read and accept what it says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I appreciate Eric’s input: “I believe what Nelson was alluding to in his Question about ‘will’ and ‘work’. ‘God works all things according to the purpose of his will’. That doesn't necessarily mean that He directly wills everything, but everything that does happen works for His purpose. (Rom.8:28).” And he has correctly read my intentions in submitting the question. There is a difference between God working and God willing all things, a difference that seems to have eluded Larry.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Pastor Larry · Jan 4, 2002

Nelson,

The reason why I skipped what you feel to be the major thrust of your post is because you undermined it with your reponses to my question. I specifically asked those questions to see if you were drawing your theology from Scripture or from your own mind. In each case, I gave the Scripture that showed your response to be inadequate with regards to revelation.

Take for instance Joseph. You say, Second, nowhere do the Scriptures state that the acts of Joseph’s brothers against him were God’s will. It was an event through which God maneuvered to work out his purposes but it was not an event He determined would occur.

Yet Gen 50:20 says, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

"Meant" is the word chasab and it has to do with accounting, purposing, or planning. It does not have to do with reacting. Furthermore, it is stated that God intended it for good in order to save his people. Here is the scene. Joseph's brothers sell him into captivity so that probably 50 years they will be saved from a famine. I call that sovereignty. You apparently call it chance (though I am sure you would not agree with that terminology). Whatever your position is, it seems impossible to deny that "God meant it for good." It was not the acts of some out of control jealous brothers. It was the secondary causation of God who, knowing the future, made possible a way to save his chosen people from famine.

With regard to Job and God's allowing his children to be killed, you said "He shouldn't but he does" and then wonder why I said you have God doing something he knows he shouldn't do. I don't understand how you missed that one. Furthermore your comment that it was Satan and not God contradicts Job himself who attributed the calamity to the hand of the Lord (Job 2:10). Again, this shows your failure to deal with teh text of Scripture, instead choosing your own conceptions of the way things must be.

One last comment on the crucifixion. You seem to have plainly denied Acts 2 where it is clear that the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God are behind the crucifixion. Compare that to 1 Cor 2:6-8

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice the following:
1. The wisdom in view is salvation by a crucified Messiah.
2. They wisdom in view was predestined before the ages.
3. The wisdom in view was unknown to those who crucified Christ, thereby accomplishing the wisdom that was before the ages.

Here is your difficulty: The crucified Messiah was determined before the ages and therefore before Adam's sin. Therefore, it must of necessity take place. Therefore, Adam had no "real free will" as you guys like to say because he had to sin; the crucifixion, which as you say was predicated on Adam's sin, had already been ordained. As can be see, the precious "free will" you are determined to protect never really existed.

As for your protestations about the rape of an eight year old boy, I have already admitted I don't have all the answers. What do you want me to say? Do you want me to deny clear Scripture so that I can not "impugn" the character of God? God is not impugned by the small minds of those who cannot reconcile his infinite perfections. What I do know is that "God is in the heavens; he does whatever he please" (Ps 115:3; 135:6). I will leave it up to him.

Eric B · Jan 4, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You assume here a supralapsarian position which I do not hold. I think God created all, then decreed the fall, then decreed to provide atonement, then decreed to save some. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Here is your difficulty: The crucified Messiah was determined before the ages and therefore before Adam's sin. Therefore, it must of necessity take place. Therefore, Adam had no "real free will" as you guys like to say because he had to sin; the crucifixion, which as you say was predicated on Adam's sin, had already been ordained. As can be see, the precious "free will" you are determined to protect never really existed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this contradictory? In one statement the Creation is first, then the Fall and atonement come later. Now you're saying the Atonement is first, (which would seemingly necessitate a Fall and reprobation to justify it--the supra position). I'm not trying to be smart, just pointing this out.

Pastor Larry · Jan 4, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
Isn't this contradictory? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. One has to do with the order of decree and one has to do with the working out in time. The decrees (create, permit, provide, elect) all precede the acts (create, fall, provide atonement).

Nelson · Jan 6, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Larry:Nelson, The reason why I skipped what you feel to be the major thrust of your post is because you undermined it with your responses to my question. I specifically asked those questions to see if you were drawing your theology from Scripture or from your own mind. In each case, I gave the Scripture that showed your response to be inadequate with regards to revelation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The “major thrust” of my post was not undermined by my answers to Larry’s questions, but rather confirmed and I responded showing why I believed Larry is mistaken in light of how the questions were asked. It seems he has not understood his own questions and, consequently, misconstrued my answers.

I am still under the impression that Larry’s view, as he has explained it, leads to the idea that God is the author of sin. Nothing he has stated thus far has led me to believe otherwise. In any event, I have adequately explained already why I answered as I did.

I welcome anyone to read the post in question and advise me (preferably via my Email address) where they believe I have misinterpreted Larry’s questions or “undermined” my previous remarks by my answers. Otherwise, I am not convinced that Larry’s reason for skipping the “major thrust” of my objections is legitimate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Take for instance Joseph. You say…Yet Gen 50:20 says…"Meant" is the word chasab and it has to do with accounting, purposing, or planning…Joseph's brothers sell him into captivity…I call that sovereignty…It was not the acts of some out of control jealous brothers…<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand what Larry seems to imply in his interpretation of the word “meant”. I agree with the meaning of the word itself. However, his interpretation of the text seems to go beyond what both the word itself means and it’s intended meaning within the Biblical context. Again, if God’s willed the abuse against Joseph, then God is the author of evil. It was not the abuse that God intended for Joseph but the deliverance through the abuse; it was the deliverance that was God’s will and not the abuse.

I think the subject regarding my answer to Larry’s questions have been adequately resolved. The fault lies in Larry’s misunderstanding of his own questions and not in my answers to them. Again, I welcome anyone’s input via Email who thinks otherwise.

If it were not the acts of Joseph’s brothers, then it was God? If so, God is made to be the author of sin.

Just to confirm that we’re on the same page in this discussion, I understand “God’s will” to mean (simply stated) “His primary choice or intention”. For example, it was God’s will to create man; it was not God’s will for men to sin. Also, it was God’s will, on the condition that men would sin, to bring deliverance and that through Christ; it was not God’s will that Christ suffer and die except under the condition that mankind sins.

Though already discussed, another example to show what is meant by “God’s will” is Joseph. It was not God’s will that his brothers abuse him; it was God’s will to deliver Joseph from such abuse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>With regard to Job and God's allowing his children to be killed, you said "He shouldn't but he does" and then wonder why I said you have God doing something he knows he shouldn't do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Larry seems to draw the meaning of my words “from his own mind” rather than from what I have actually stated. I believe that an impartial reader of my post would find that Larry has misunderstood my comments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>…your comment that it was Satan and not God contradicts Job himself who attributed the calamity to the hand of the Lord (Job 2:10).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Job had not read the chapter before at the time Satan attacked him. The book shows, at least to my satisfaction, that Satan did the evil against Job, which God permitted it. Job 2:10 needs be interpreted in the light of chapter one and all of chapter two.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One last comment on the crucifixion. You seem to have plainly denied Acts 2 where it is clear that the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God are behind the crucifixion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jesus came to earth for the express purpose of exposing himself to death through the hands of sinners in order to bring salvation. Though not directly related to the topic, I found an intriguing remark in the book by Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker quoting from a sermon by Curtis Chang of InterVarsity Fellowship where he states, “The cross stands as the victory of God…The weight of our sin sought to suffocate God himself, but the Son and the Father have together suffocated sin in their embrace” of all that we are as sinners (Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, pg. 193. Emphasis mine).

Getting back to the subject, I think the emphasis of Acts 2:23 is, not that God had ordained those who did crucify Christ to crucify Him, but through his crucifixion, God would bring deliverance. It was not the evil of crucifixion itself “by wicked hands” but the deliverance maneuvered through the evil that God ordained. Note that the Bible declares that Jesus was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.”

I am wondering if the word “delivered” has reference, not to Jesus being delivered into the hands of wicked men but to verse 24: “God raised up.” It seems to be a viable interpretation. In any case, what God determined was to permit wicked men to crucify Him; God did not determine the abuse and crucifixion itself. I believe Acts 4:28 can be interpreted in this way, also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>…Adam had no "real free will" as you guys like to say because he had to sin…As can be see, the precious "free will" you are determined to protect never really existed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Though the subject of “free will”, related as it may be, veers off the specific topic of discussion, nevertheless, I will respond.

If Adam had to sin then God is the author of sin. If Adam had no “real free will” then the Bible misrepresents itself and the idea that we “obey” or "disobey" God is a fiction. This is my main objection to Larry’s interpretation of Scripture because God is made the first and only cause of sin; Larry makes God to be the author of sin.

James 1:13 argues clearly and forcefully against such a notion. On this passage, the Wycliffe Bible Commentary states that “James probably had in mind the Jewish doctrine of the…‘evil impulse.’ Some Jews reasoned that since God created everything, he must have created the evil impulse. And since it is the evil impulse that tempts man to sin, ultimately God, who created it, is responsible for evil. James here refutes the idea” (pg. 1431). In denying man “real free will,” Larry’s theology falls into the same error of attributing evil to God.

We are not puppets on a string, doing the good and the evil, exactly as an amoral God decrees it. Free will is precious because God has given it to us. I must completely disagree with Larry’s theology on this point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for your protestations about the rape of an eight year old boy, I have already admitted I don't have all the answers. What do you want me to say? Do you want me to deny clear Scripture so that I can not "impugn" the character of God? God is not impugned by the small minds of those who cannot reconcile his infinite perfection. What I do know is that "God is in the heavens; he does whatever he please" (Ps 115:3; 135:6). I will leave it up to him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one is asking Larry for all the answers. What is being asked is one thing: How do his views preserve God’s holiness? Can his views be explained in a reasonable fashion that does not lead to dispute God's goodness. He admits he cannot.

Unfortunately, Larry does give us an answer (and that is the problem) but it impugns God’s holy character. The fact that he confesses his inability to defend God’s character in light of his theology makes matters worse.

As for my part, I may not have all the answers (and I am not required to) but I am not obligated to believe in that which denounces God’s character. I do not believe God ordained the rape of an 8-year-old boy. In desiring to maintain (an erroneous view of) God’s sovereignty, Larry advocates ridiculous theological notions and sacrifices the clear Biblical teachings of God’s goodness.

One’s theology does not determine Biblical declarations. When reasonable answers to legitimate problems in the Bible are lacking (especially when nonsense and evil are attributed to God’s character) and Biblical assertions and life experiences contradict each other, then it is the believer’s duty to search for a better answer that honors God and preserves the integrity of man as created by God. No one is obligated to believe anyone whose notions about the Bible are dishonoring to God’s character and Biblically incoherent, especially if they claim it is the Spirit of truth teaching them.

According to Larry’s interpretation of the Biblical text, we are justified in declaring that “God is in the heavens; he rapes whomever he pleases.” Our theology should not reflect an “authoritarian, punitive God and a source of victimization.” For “the cross is not the scene of divine child abuse, but the vivid, paradoxical display of the love of God as it takes up and overcomes the brokenness of the world.” The sufferings of Christ are “a revelation of the heart of God” (The Scandal of the Cross, pg. 194f)

It is not true that “might makes right”, i.e. because God is sovereign he can do as he pleases, and (with all due respect to Larry’s intelligence) possessing a small mind is no excuse for slandering God’s goodness. God’s goodness legitimizes His right as Sovereign, not His power. It is not God’s Sovereignty that determines his actions, but His beneficence. The verses cited in Psalm 115 and 136 must be interpreted within the context. What is God’s pleasure to do? To bless those who trust in Him (115:11-15) and to deliver His people from oppression (Psalm 135:4, 8-10).

Such notions as Larry holds cannot be reasoned by hiding behind cliches like, “God works in mysterious ways”, or by bullying the reasonable assertions of others with passages like 1 Cor. 2:6-8.

Regardless of one’s protestation to exegetical accuracy and honesty, once God’s holiness is compromised, the head of Biblical truth is put on the guillotine.

As a footnote, if one can't explain God in simple matters, no need to take his advice on more complicated subjects.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Chris Temple · Jan 7, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am still under the impression that Larry’s view, as he has explained it, leads to the idea that God is the author of sin. Nothing he has stated thus far has led me to believe otherwise. In any event, I have adequately explained already why I answered as I did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the fundamental error you are making, which the Bible refutes. God can be the ordainer of evil without being the author of sin.

On the surface, a human defense of God’s character is well-meant. Yet as John Piper has said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Many Christians are speaking this way [that God didn’t do it – just allow it] about the murderous destruction of the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. God did not cause it, but he can use it for good. There are two reasons I do not say this. One is that it goes beyond, and is contrary to, what the Bible teaches. The other is that it undermines the very hope it wants to offer.

First, this statement goes beyond and against the Bible. For some, all they want to say, in denying that God "caused" the calamity, is that God is not a sinner and that God does not remove human accountability and that God is compassionate. That is true - and precious beyond words. But for others, and for most people who hear this slogan, something far more is implied. Namely, God, by his very nature, cannot or would not act to bring about such a calamity. This view of God is what contradicts the Bible and undercuts hope.

How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God is the creator, the ordainer of all things. All things means all things. He even created Satan. God has a purpose in ordaining and controlling sin and evil. Yet he is not morally responsible for it, as evil is performed by Secondary Causes. God is First Cause of all things who works his perfect, holy purposes and will through Secondary Causes. There are several biblical examples.

In Job, we read :

Job 1:7-8 (ESV)
The Lord said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the Lord and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." [8] And the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"

We read here that Satan was did not have Job in mind to do evil against, and that God instigated Satan to do evil against Job. Yet Satan was the sinner and not God. We also read:

Job 1:9-12 (ESV)
Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? [10] Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. [11] But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." [12] And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

Note that Satan equates his own actions, which are instigated and allowed by God, to be the work of God, who “stretches out his hand and touches all that he has” through Satan. God is first cause, working through Satan for the benefit of Job and his redemptive purposes.

After the decimation, Job replies:

Job 1:20-22 (ESV)
Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. [21] 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." [22] In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.

Note that Job understood this to be coming from God; “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away”. Yet is was Satan who acted in evil. God ordained that evil occur, yet it is Satan who is responsible and not God. To charge God as First Cause with sinning is a horrendous sin which Job did nto fall into.

The same situation them repeats:

Job 2:3-6 (ESV)
And the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason." [4] Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. [5] But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face." [6] And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life."

We see the same things: God incites Satan to do evil; Satan affirms that it is God working through himself; and God directs the amount and level of evil.

Then Job again wisely says:

Job 2:9-10 (ESV)
Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die." [10] But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job again recognized that God is ultimate cause of both good and evil. Yet even in ordaining evil, “..the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. [28] And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Romans 8:2b7-28 (ESV)

Another example of God working through evil or sin is in David’s numbering of Israel. In 1 Chron. 21:1-2 (ESV) we read:

Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. [2] So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, "Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number."

Yet what do we read in 2 Samuel 24:1?

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

It is seen that in the numbering of Israel, God used Satan to incite David to sin, yet Satan and David are the guilty sinners and not God. God is First Cause and all others are Second Causes. God uses evil for his own perfectly good purposes.

Again, God worked in and through sinful men in causing Joseph’s captivity in Egypt. Joseph’s brothers sinned against Joseph and against God by all that they did. Genesis 50:20 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.

They, in their own freewill meant these things for evil, but God brought them into Egypt for good. If Joseph had not been sold into Egypt, then Israel would never have been enslaved in Egypt, which is a type of all men’s enslavement to sin, and Moses would not have been their savior out of Egypt (Moses being a type of Christ), and God’s redemptive-historical plan would not have come to completion. God is in control of the evil in the world, yet he is not the author (the direct agent, actor, designer) of sin. This is because he is First Cause and He is holy and righteous in all he does.

Lastly, we see that God was in perfect control of evil in the design of Christ’s death.

In Acts we read:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— [23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. Acts 2:22-23 (ESV)

We see plainly stated that Jesus was delivered up by the definite, purposeful plan of God, to evil men who committed the horrendous sin of crucifying the Lord of glory. God planned it; directed it to its fruition, and sinful men accomplished it.

Throughout Scripture it cannot be avoided that God ordains, instigates and controls evil, in order to bring about his perfect, righteous and holy plan of redemption and glorification of his name.

Nelson · Jan 8, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>by Chris Temple:God is the creator, the ordainer of all things. All things means all things. He even created Satan. God has a purpose in ordaining and controlling sin and evil. Yet he is not morally responsible for it, as evil is performed by Secondary Causes. God is First Cause of all things who works his perfect, holy purposes and will through Secondary Causes. There are several biblical examples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris, as far as I can tell, has clearly contradicted himself. In the first place he states, “God is the creator, the ordainer of all things,” and he emphasizes what “all things” mean. Then, I assume to be consistent, he states that “God created Satan.” But this is where consistency ends.

First, he states that God is “not morally responsible” for sin and evil. This assertion cannot be true if God is “the creator, the ordainer of all things” and “All things means all things.” If God created and ordained all things and “all things” truly means “all things,” then God created and ordained every sinner (if God created Satan, surely He created man as a sinner) and evil imaginable. If God did not create sin and evil, as Chris asserts, then God did not create all things, an assertion that he clearly denies.

Secondly, Chris asserts it was God who created Satan. If God created an evil being that would steal innocence, rape children, perpetrate war and many other gross and enormous evils (not counting the little evils), then God is morally responsible. If I teach my children to steal and kill, even though they commit the crimes and I do not, can it still be asserted that I am not morally responsible? Am I not the First Cause of the evil they commit?

In addition, if it is insisted that God is good and, as the first cause, created sin and Satan, then they must be good and not moral evils, which turns God’s declarations of love for man and the whole moral universe totally upside-down.

Thirdly, Chris further states that it is because “evil is performed by Secondary Causes” that God is not responsible. Again, let us return to the example directly above. If that father who taught his children evil morally responsible? Furthermore, how can acts of sin and evil clear God from any guilt if He (1) created sin, and (2) ordained every evil that man commits.

Though the sinner rapes because He wants to rape, the sinner wants to rape because God wants him to rape, God ordained him to rape, and it is inevitable that he will rape because God, in having “created all things,” created all things for the express purpose that all things act in conformity to His will. And in this particular example, it was God's will for a particular individual to rape a particular child in a specific manner for a specific amount of time. Even all the particulars of the rape were decreed by God.

A sinner (the secondary cause) may sin because He wants to sin, but he sins primarily and exclusively because God (as the first cause) created him for the purpose of sinning.

If God created and ordained all things, if all things exist and occur exactly as they exist and occur necessarily because God wills them (as Chris states: God is First Cause of all things who works his perfect, holy purposes and will through Secondary Causes) then to speak of secondary causes is nonsense. There are no secondary causes, there is only a first cause and that First Cause is God.

However, regardless of secondary causes, if God is the First Cause of “all things”, then it is God who, in the final analysis, is morally responsible for the rape of the 8-year-old boy. It is the logical and reasonable conclusion. This is true especially in the light of what Chris states at the bottom of his post, “God ordains, instigates and controls evil.” Applied to the example of rape, “God ordained, instigated and controlled” the raping of an 8-year-old boy.

This view, though it will be fiercely denied, is tantamount to making God the author of sin and is as absurd and repugnant, if not more so, as the assertion that God’s decree and God’s moral character are not in any way related (cf. post by Larry dated 12/21/2001, 10:27 PM; also, see Eric’s objection posted 12/21/2001, 10:57 PM).

I submit that:

1. The interpretation of Scriptures needs to be apprehended in a manner that does not impugn God's nature as holy and His character as good.

2. God's sovereignty is rightly apprehended, not by merely asserting what he is capable of doing but, by asserting his holiness and goodness as foundational to it.

3. God's relationship to man, as far as the message of salvation is concerned, is not mysterious, as least not as mysterious as it is contemplated by others.

4. Scriptural interpretation does not necessarily exclude life experiences along with one's interpretation of those experiences.

5. Divine illumination and revelation, though it may take one beyond common sense, does not contradict common sense.

I appreciate everyone who took the time reading my post, considering it's length.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Chris Temple · Jan 8, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Chris, as far as I can tell, has clearly contradicted himself. In the first place he states, “God is the creator, the ordainer of all things,” and he emphasizes what “all things” mean. Then, I assume to be consistent, he states that “God created Satan.” But this is where consistency ends.

First, he states that God is “not morally responsible” for sin and evil. This assertion cannot be true if God is “the creator, the ordainer of all things” and “All things means all things.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why can it not be true – because you say so? God is God and we are not – God is not bound by the same rules we are, as created subordinate beings. God is always holy and righteous and just. Whatever God does is right because God does it. You are not the judge of God.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If God created and ordained all things and “all things” truly means “all things,” then God created and ordained every sinner (if God created Satan, surely He created man as a sinner) and evil imaginable. If God did not create sin and evil, as Chris asserts, then God did not create all things, an assertion that he clearly denies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
God created man in true holiness and righteousness. “II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfill it:[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,[10] and had dominion over the creatures.[11]” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IV; Of Creation).

Man chose to rebel in sin. The distinction between First Causation and Second Causation you have not dealt with, nor possibly understand. “I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III Of God's Eternal Decree)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Secondly, Chris asserts it was God who created Satan. If God created an evil being that would steal innocence, rape children, perpetrate war and many other gross and enormous evils (not counting the little evils), then God is morally responsible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you suggesting that there is a created being whom God did not create? Did not God create all the angels, even those who would fall? Even Arminianism agrees that God created Satan, albeit as a perfect angel, who was allowed to fall into sin and apostasy.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If I teach my children to steal and kill, even though they commit the crimes and I do not, can it still be asserted that I am not morally responsible? Am I not the First Cause of the evil they commit? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here you commit two errors. One is the comparison of your sinful self and your actions, desires and motives to what God does in perfect holiness of actions, desires and motives. The other is that God somehow “teaches children to steal and kill”. God does not, but "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders” (Mark 7:21) And no, you are not the First Cause of the evil they commit, but a Secondary Cause.

Why is it I dealt extensively with the biblical texts but you do not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In addition, if it is insisted that God is good and, as the first cause, created sin and Satan, then they must be good and not moral evils, which turns God’s declarations of love for man and the whole moral universe totally upside-down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another non sequitor, as you are determining what must occur in God’s ordained universe. If God ordained that evil be, “O man, who are you to reply against God?” (Rom 9:20).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Thirdly, Chris further states that it is because “evil is performed by Secondary Causes” that God is not responsible. Again, let us return to the example directly above. If that father who taught his children evil morally responsible? Furthermore, how can acts of sin and evil clear God from any guilt if He (1) created sin, and (2) ordained every evil that man commits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Already dealt with biblically. Your problem is that you are exalting your human reason, as all Arminians do, above the biblical witness. Again, why do you not deal with the texts cited?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Though the sinner rapes because He wants to rape, the sinner wants to rape because God wants him to rape, God ordained him to rape, and it is inevitable that he will rape because God, in having “created all things,” created all things for the express purpose that all things act in conformity to His will. And in this particular example, it was God's will for a particular individual to rape a particular child in a specific manner for a specific amount of time. Even all the particulars of the rape were decreed by God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The sinner sins because it is his nature and desire to do so. Every sin is done by the free choice of the sinner. Yet God has ordained all that comes to pass, for his greater purpose:

Isa 46: 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A sinner (the secondary cause) may sin because He wants to sin, but he sins primarily and exclusively because God (as the first cause) created him for the purpose of sinning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That’s closer to the biblical witness than you have been before.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If God created and ordained all things, if all things exist and occur exactly as they exist and occur necessarily because God wills them (as Chris states: God is First Cause of all things who works his perfect, holy purposes and will through Secondary Causes) then to speak of secondary causes is nonsense. There are no secondary causes, there is only a first cause and that First Cause is God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, this is from your own mind and logic, and not from good theology or the biblical record. Your same statement can be turned toward all good and not evil: “there is no need for humans to do anything, least of all preach the gospel to the lost, because there is only a first cause and that First Cause is God”. But that is not what the word of God reveals. He has chosen to work in and through secondary causes for his own good pleasure, not for your. Your statements promote fatalism, which is not the biblical witness.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, regardless of secondary causes, if God is the First Cause of “all things”, then it is God who, in the final analysis, is morally responsible for the rape of the 8-year-old boy. It is the logical and reasonable conclusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is only logical and reasonable in a mind set apart from the biblical record. Deal with the texts, deal with the texts! You have not dealt with a single text I expounded in the previous post. Why is that?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is true especially in the light of what Chris states at the bottom of his post, “God ordains, instigates and controls evil.” Applied to the example of rape, “God ordained, instigated and controlled” the raping of an 8-year-old boy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What do the Job texts say? Can you deal with them?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1. The interpretation of Scriptures needs to be apprehended in a manner that does not impugn God's nature as holy and His character as good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you know that God’s character is good and his nature holy apart from the biblical witness? You are doing eisogesis and not exegesis. You are determining what it means for God to be holy and righteous by what he demands of you. God IS holiness and righteousness, and remains so, whether he saves undeserving sinners or decimates an entire nation, killing every man, woman and child. Again, you are not the judge of God.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2. God's sovereignty is rightly apprehended, not by merely asserting what he is capable of doing but, by asserting his holiness and goodness as foundational to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A restatement of 1, and answered.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>3. God's relationship to man, as far as the message of salvation is concerned, is not mysterious, as least not as mysterious as it is contemplated by others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True. Salvation is by grace, through faith. But we are given insights into the mysterious via the non-mysterious revelation of God.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>4. Scriptural interpretation does not necessarily exclude life experiences along with one's interpretation of those experiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, a frank admission. Although Scripture does not eliminate life experiences,it overrules them every time. You would put existentialism on par with revelation, and thereby nullify sola scriptura. The Bible is the primary locus of truth, and that truth cannot be altered by any experience.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>5. Divine illumination and revelation, though it may take one beyond common sense, does not contradict common sense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it does, as “common sense’” is corrupted due to sin. Common sense says that no dead man rises up after three days. Human logic and common sense is not on par with the unknowable mind of God. Again Arminianism shows itself to be a system based upon human logic rather than the biblical witness.
Ezekiel 18:29 "Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Pastor Larry · Jan 8, 2002

I have not posted much lately because of several things. One is time; another is the resistance of some here to deal with the plain text of Scripture.

One thing that I think is greatly missing here is a realization of the Creator-creature distinction. Nelson decries the fact that "we have it all figured out" because we contradict "what he has figured out."

In the end, as Chris said, God is God and is not bound to tell us anything, much less everything. There is an eternal Creator-creature distinction that prevents us from seeing all things fully and having complete understanding.

I have written some responses and perhaps when I have time to thoroughly edit them, I will post them.

Nelson · Jan 8, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Larry says:Nelson decries the fact that "we have it all figured out" because we contradict "what he has figured out."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In previous posts Larry has stated:

“We must simply take God at what he says and live accordingly.”

“I am a Calvinist because of Scripture. I take it for what it says.”

“What I do have is the inspired Word of God, and when examined plainly, it reveals biblical truth – spelled TULIP.”

I think these few quote are adequate to demonstrate that the shoe belongs to Larry.

I am sure that he would agree that the only way to “take God at what He says” is to interpret it in no other way than by that theology, which he espouses.

Larry has, without warrant, misrepresented my position. Nowhere have I stated that I have “figured it out” in it’s entirety nor have I accused the posters with whom I disagree that they have it all wrong. If I am mistaken, please advise and post the quote where I have made such remarks or even implied it.

If anything, I have merely affirmed: (1) That in matters pertaining to our salvation, God has not left us in the dark, and (2) Divine revelation and illumination does not require the disposal of common sense for one’s apprehension.

Furthermore, (1) I admit I have directed intense objections to any comments that reasonably lead to impugn God’s goodness but I have not impugned the character of those who made such comments, and (2) I have tried to be plain and simple in my discussions.

Unless one can demonstrate by providing specific quotes by me, Larry is quite mistaken in his assessment of my position.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Pastor Larry · Jan 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nelson:
In previous posts Larry has stated:

“We must simply take God at what he says and live accordingly.”

“I am a Calvinist because of Scripture. I take it for what it says.”

“What I do have is the inspired Word of God, and when examined plainly, it reveals biblical truth – spelled TULIP.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I probably said the first two. I did not say the last. That belongs to Chris. YOu have yet to see me use "TULIP" in any thread on this forum, I believe.

These statements, far from demonstrating that "the shoe" belongs to me, demonstrates that I am perfectly willing to not have it all figured out. I do not have to explain more than what Scripture says. You however, do feel the need to. My assessment of yoru position does not come from an explicit quote but rather from the general tenor and thrust of your arguments.

You seem intent on denying that "God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases." I could cite verse upon verse that you insist can't mean what it says because it conflicts with your idea of what a good and holy God must do. I have cited many passages of what the good and holy God said he did and you have said it is not true. I do not have much further to say when you do not deal with the text of Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...nor have I accused the posters with whom I disagree that they have it all wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement after (falsely) accusing me of making God the author of sin? Surely you jest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(1) That in matters pertaining to our salvation, God has not left us in the dark,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has not left us in the dark. You do not appear to have accepted what he has said regarding election, the free will of man, his sovereign grace in choosing those who would otherwise not choose him, etc. God has not left us in the dark; however, nor has he fully revealed himself to us.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(2) Divine revelation and illumination does not require the disposal of common sense for one’s apprehension.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one here has said that it does.

Your "intense objections to any comments that reasonably lead to impugn God’s goodness" are well-intentioned to be sure but out of place in this discussion. No one is impugning the goodness of God here. And no one is impugning your character. The questions are far different than that.

The questions deal with the sovereignty of God and its implications.

As I have previously said, your position is equally tenuous. Your good and holy God who can prevent everything but chooses not to is no better than a God who ordains all things. Surely a good and holy God would not allow the rape of an eight year old boy. If he could prevent it and doesn't, can he still be called good?

Nelson · Jan 10, 2002

If one will go back to read my posts, it will be clear that I never said the Scriptures were not true but that Larry’s interpretation of what it is saying is erred.

In Christ is all the revelation that is necessary for salvation and in that sense we have full revelation. However, I have consistently affirmed that we have not yet figured it all out. If we had, we wouldn’t be disagreeing and discussing it, I hope on both our parts, on friendly terms.

That no one is making direct insults regarding God’s character, I agree. However, the view Larry has expressed would, I contend, logically lead to that conclusion and is tantamount to asserting that God is evil.

I believe the views I hold are less tenuous than Larry’s.

It seems that Larry is arguing more about how I am responding to his posts, that I am not answering to the Bibles verses he presents. I think a quick review of past posts will clarify whether or not Larry’s complaint is valid.

On my post, dated 1/1 at 10:58 PM, I contested Larry’s interpretation of Eph. 1:11 regarding his comment on “all things” by explaining what such a view as he propose would imply (if my assessment of his meaning is correct) and, in conclusion, asked how such a view as his can be held without impugning God’s character. On his response post, Larry agreed with the “general thrust” of my understanding of his position (though he stressed he would use different terms).

However, Larry admitted he did not know how to explain the verse without logically concluding that God’s character is impugned, though he believed that somehow it was not. Larry concluded that I had the "bigger problem" explaining why the verse [Eph. 1:11] doesn't mean what he asserts it means.

Afterwards, Larry skipped the main points of my objections to deal with certain answers I had given to questions he proposed and felt demonstrated the fallacy of my argument (even though he misrepresented my responses due largely to the fact that he misunderstood his own questions).

Larry cited the following Scripture references in defense of his position: Gen. 38-50; Job 2:10; Acts 2:23; 2 Cor. 2:12. Please see post by Larry 1/3/02, 02:21 PM and see my response posted 1/3/02, 12:46 PM where I discussed Eph. 1:11 and 1/4/02, 04:41 PM wherein I referred to all the verses listed above, which he cited and corrected his misunderstanding of his own questions. In that same post I again discussed briefly, in conclusion, Eph. 1:11 using Eric’s helpful explanation of the verse.On post of 1/6/02, 03:34 PM, I responded to more of verses Paul cited, which were Gen. 50:20; again Acts 2:23 and Job 2:10; 4:28; and finally, Ps. 115 and 136.

I believe I have dealt with the scripture quotations Larry put forth in defense of his position. The gist of his responses to my objections was that I was not accepting the Bible for what it says and, therefore, was raising myself up to be God's judge. I think a reading of the posts by objective parties would agree. If not, anyone may post wherein I have skirted the issues and the texts I have ignored.

As I have asserted before, I accept the Bible for what it says but not for how Larry interprets it to say. Sufficient evidence as been given above to show that Larry’s contention that I “do not deal with the text of Scripture” is false.

To just throw a verse at someone and, for all intents and purposes, declare they either take it for what it says or they are in danger of judging God is, with all due respect, infantile.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

Pastor Larry · Jan 10, 2002

Nelson,

I will be honest with you. I do not even now how to answer some of this because it is so far off base. It is not even involved in serious discussions that take place in theology, at least that I know of. It smacks of those who disagree with Scripture and set about to explain it all away. Most of your posts above are so far afield I will ignore the majority of it. If I ignore something you think is significant, you can point that out.

You are missing the point in my posts. The reason why your answers to my questions undermine your position is that Scriptures shows your answer to be inconsistent with revelation. You said, on various issues, that God either “cannot” or “should not” do thing that God has clearly done. You are the one impugning God, not I. You ask for someone to answer you in either this forum or in email for reasons why you have undermined yourself. I have showed you the reasons. I will choose only one: You said God cannot ordain the torture and murder of one child. Yet Acts 2:23 says that God did just that and 2 Cor 4 backs it up as being ordained from eternity past. God clearly did the very thing you said he cannot do. Yet you do not answer the question. You blame me for it. Then you ignore the text. (See next post).

It is fine and well for you to claim that the Scriptures are true but my interpretation is not. Guess what the other side of the equation is: Larry believes the Scriptures are true but Nelson’s interpretation is not. At this point, you have made a meaningless statement. The deciding issue is the grammatical-historical interpretation. Your position, as has been and will be shown, cannot withstand that level of examination.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, the view Larry has expressed would, I contend, logically lead to that conclusion and is tantamount to asserting that God is evil. I believe the views I hold are less tenuous than Larry’s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and again

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am still under the impression that Larry’s view, as he has explained it, leads to the idea that God is the author of sin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are under a wrong impression because I do not believe this and I have said nothing to make you believe this. Herein lies another problem. With all due respect, your logical conclusion is dead wrong and my position has been uniformly defended for centuries by people who hold my position. Furthermore, to say that your views are less tenuous only testifies to the narrow-mindedness with which you hold them. You do not look at the implications of your position. I see far greater problems in your view than in mine. I am willing to leave God in control and believe that he does not contradict himself or impugn himself. I am willing to let the texts of Scripture stand as they do.

Then you contend that I misunderstood my own questions. That does not even make sense. I am the one who asked them and formulated them very carefully. This is very simply a matter of authorial intention. The questions mean whatever I say they do. Hopefully, I have formulated them using the principle of commonality so that you understand them. I believe you did understand them because you answered them with no equivocation. What you are not willing to deal with are the Scriptures that contradict the answers you gave. (See above on not being able to withstand exegesis as well as below on the texts in question).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On post of 1/6/02, 03:34 PM, I responded to more of verses Paul cited, which were Gen. 50:20; again Acts 2:23 and Job 2:10; 4:28; and finally, Ps. 115 and 136. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But your responses are clearly inadequate as will be shown by a post I wrote on 1-6 and never posted. They simply do not deal with the text.

Enough with the foolishness. Let’s look at the texts in question.

Pastor Larry · Jan 10, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Getting back to the subject, I think the emphasis of Acts 2:23 is, not that God had ordained those who did crucify Christ to crucify Him, but through his crucifixion, God would bring deliverance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, simply not what the text says. What you think the emphasis is is not the emphasis. Your discussion of “delivered” ignores the context. It is a diversionary attempt. If you read the verse, your question would be answered. “This man” was the one delivered over and he was delievered by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. You can’t really get around that in the text.

As for Gen 50:20, your statement I agree with the meaning of the word itself. is undermined by your rejection of what it says. It is a purpose statement – in order that. In other words, whatever the “meant” refers to, it was for the purpose of deliverance from the famine. Now consider that against your claim that “it was the deliverance that was God’s will.” That clearly rejects the plain statement. What was God’s will was “A” so that “B” (the deliverance) could take place. The text clearly says that God meant “it” for good so that the deliverance could come about. Consider your own conclusion in light of this. You think that God "meant" the deliverance. Therefore the passage would mean, "God meant the deliverance for good so that the deliverance could take place." Can you not see the logical absurdity in that statement. “It,” in the context, is clearly what the brothers did in selling Joseph. And God intended that selling for good, so that years later in a time of famine, he could preserve his chosen people alive. Time and space prevent painting the beautiful picture from Gen 38-50. But it clearly requires a God who acts, not reacts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Just to confirm that we’re on the same page in this discussion, I understand “God’s will” to mean (simply stated) “His primary choice or intention”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a fundamental problem. You misunderstood “will” as it is commonly used. “Will” is what God determines to bring about. It can, in some contexts, refer to either his desires or to his decree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Job had not read the chapter before at the time Satan attacked him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another example of faulty reasoning. This makes no difference. Job clearly understood what happened to him to be from the hand of God. To “interpret in the light of chapter one and all of chapter two” further confirms my point: that God was ultimately in control of the situation. Job attributes the acts of calamity to God on two different occasions (Job 1:21; 2:10 – I just realized the second as I read this passage this morning). God is the one who instigates it by questioning Satan. And God never corrects Job’s “faulty theology.” There is a good reason for that. It was not faulty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is my main objection to Larry’s interpretation of Scripture because God is made the first and only cause of sin; Larry makes God to be the author of sin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. Read any number of writers on this topic and you will understand why this is not so. You are not distinguishing between primary and secondary causation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Free will is precious because God has given it to us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do not seem to understand free will. Free will is the ability to act in accordance with the nature. It means that every time, natural man will choose to reject God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What is being asked is one thing: How do his views preserve God’s holiness? Can his views be explained in a reasonable fashion that does not lead to dispute God holiness. He admits he cannot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I admit this? God is holy and he is true to his revelation. That is what I believe. I have not impugned God’s holiness. I have simply stated what Scripture says.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>[ I do not believe God ordained the rape of an 8-year-old boy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then “all things” are not worked by God according to his will? You are plainly denying Scripture at this point. Consider Psalm 139:16: Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In desiring to maintain (an erroneous view of) God’s sovereignty, Larry advocates ridiculous theological notions and sacrifices the clear Biblical teachings of God’s goodness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have advocated no ridiculous theological notions, except the ones contained in Scripture. Nor have I maintained an erroneous view of God’s sovereignty. If we could deal substantively with the texts it would be shown.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>According to Larry’s interpretation of the Biblical text, we are justified in declaring that “God is in the heavens; he rapes whomever he pleases.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally and completely false and you know it. You are engaging in intentional misrepresentation and lies. God does not rape anyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Regardless of one’s protestation to exegetical accuracy and honesty, once God’s holiness is compromised, the head of Biblical truth is put on the guillotine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One problem: Everything we know about God’s holiness comes from exegetical accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As a footnote, if one can't explain God in simple matters, no need to take his advice on more complicated subjects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me anyone who can explain God in simple matters. You have an equally disturbing problem with even greater implications. If God could have prevented the rape of a boy and yet did not, is not his goodness equally called into question? Furthermore, it becomes hopeless because a God who chose not to prevent such a horrible evil can certainly not be trusted with anything else. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of victory in the final great conflict of the ages because God is not willing (according to you) to compromise man’s free will. In other words, you have simply changed the context of the problem You have not answered it.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

Question for the Non-Sovereigntists

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Member

Nelson

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

Nelson

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Nelson

Guest

New Member

Nelson

Guest

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Nelson

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Nelson

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>