Sovereignty???

[Winman]

2 Sam 24:1
And againe the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and hee mooued Dauid against them, to say, Goe, number Israel and Iudah. (1611 KJV)

What am I missing?

It was David who gave the command to number Israel and Judah, not God. But see how the MVs translate this same verse.

KJB- And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Now note how the MVs completely change the meaning of this verse to say that God commanded David to number Israel and Judah. Please note the highlighted words.

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

NIV- Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

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

ASV- And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The NASB is one version that agrees with the KJB

NASB- Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

This is a very important difference, because in vs. 10 it is shown this census was a sin.

2 Sam 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

And IT WAS sin, God punished David for this sin. So you have the MVs saying that God himself commanded David to commit a sin, which fits well with those here who say God decreed sin. It is easy to see how they can believe this when reading the ESV, NIV, or other MV.

I would say that this is a MAJOR doctrinal issue here. The scriptures say God never tempts any man to sin (Jam 1:13), but the MVs say that God directly commanded David to sin.

 

[jbh28]

God is the author of sin, that doesn't make him a sinner. Read the story of David's census in 2 Samuel 24 and in 1 Chronicles 21. It will give you good insite. Also read Genesis 50:20, and Acts 4:27-28.

Romans 8 is clear that all things work for the good of God's people. And Romans 9 is clear on that as well.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on God being the author of sin.

I rarely referrence confessions but thought it would be appropriate here.

" The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

- http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Chapter V Number IV

 

[jbh28]

Yes I agree with that and I'm not talking who incited David.
The ESV states it this way:
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

According to the structure God is "saying" go......



NKJV
Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

Here David is saying "go, number Israel".



I'm not trying to get into a version debate though. However the ESV and the NKJV read differently.

I would assume it's an interpretation difference on the words. The NASB reads like the KJV and the NKJV here. The end result is the same.

but you are correct, no need to derail this to a KJV only debate.

 

[Winman]

I would assume it's an interpretation difference on the words. The NASB reads like the KJV and the NKJV here. The end result is the same.

but you are correct, no need to derail this to a KJV only debate.

Baloney, the natural understanding of the MVs has God directly commanding David to take a census which is shown to be sin in verse 10.

And if God did command David to take this census, why would David confess he had committed a great sin in doing so? He would have been following God's direct command which cannot be a sin.

2 Sam 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

This confession alone proves that God did not cause David to take this census.

And yet, this is one of Calvinism's favorite proof texts to prove God decreed sin.

 

[jbh28]

Baloney, the natural understanding of the MVs has God directly commanding David to take a census which is shown to be sin in verse 10.

And if God did command David to take this census, why would David confess he had committed a great sin in doing so? He would have been following God's direct command which cannot be a sin.

2 Sam 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

This confession alone proves that God did not cause David to take this census.

And yet, this is one of Calvinism's favorite proof texts to prove God decreed sin.

So you say that God didn't tell him just "moved" him to do it. What difference is that?

 

[Winman]

So you say that God didn't tell him just "moved" him to do it. What difference is that?

Read the verse again, God was angry at Israel. He allowed David to commit this sin as a judgment against the people.

God did not make Joseph's brothers hate him. It is clear that his brothers were very jealous of him because his father favored him. When they sold Joseph into slavery, that was their own doing, but God used this sin to take Joseph down to Egypt where he would rise up and save his people years later.

This is exactly how non-Cals understand God's sovereignty. We believe God allows men to exercise free will, and at the same time God can bring about his desired purposes. But he does not cause sin. If Joseph's brothers had not sold Joseph into slavery, God would have found another way for Joseph to go to Egypt and save his people. This is shown in Esther.

Est 4:13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.
14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

If you know this story, evil Haman had convinced the king to pass a law that all the people could kill the Jews on a certain day. Mordecai (Esther's uncle) wanted Esther (the queen) to go in to king Ahasuerus to intercede for the Jews.

But note importantly what Mordecai says to Esther. He tells her if she does not go in to the king, that "then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place".

Mordecai was telling Esther that God was going to deliver the Jews one way or another. If she would not go in to the king, God would find another way to save them, but she would perish.

So, God is not locked in stone the way some of you Calvinists portray God. God is flexible, God can "adapt and overcome" as the Marines say.

As Matthew Henry said, God used David's sin to bring judgment on Israel, but he could have done it by some other means.

 

[Rippon]

God is flexible, God can "adapt and overcome" as the Marines say.

Not much of a theologian,are you? So in your estimation God has contingency plans. That's a pathetic view of the Almighty.

 

[Winman]

Not much of a theologian,are you? So in your estimation God has contingency plans. That's a pathetic view of the Almighty.

Well, I just showed scripture to support this. You can read, open up to Esther 4 and read for yourself. I did not make this up, it is a clear as day to someone who is open to scripture and does not interpret with a bias.

A person can pull scripture out of context and make it say anything. The goal should be to understand what scripture truly says, not make it fit our personal preference. I would say people who do this are not theologians.

 

[Winman]

Here's what Gill himself said concerning Est 4:13-14

For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time…
And will not speak to the king in favour of the Jews, because of the danger she would be exposed to in doing it:

then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; Mordecai seemed confident of it, that by some means or another the Jews would be delivered; if not through the intercession of Esther, yet from some other quarter, or by some other hand:

Amazing, it seems you Calvinists are often in disagreement with your own theologians.

Lets see what Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown thought of these verses.

13, 14. Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther--His answer was to this effect, that Esther need not indulge the vain hope she would, from her royal connection, escape the general doom of her race--that he (Mordecai) confidently believed God would interpose, and, if not through her, by some other deliverer, save His people; but that the duty evidently devolved on her, as there was great reason to believe that this was the design of Providence in her elevation to the dignity of queen, and therefore that she should go with a courageous heart, not doubting of success.

Maybe you Calvinists here at BB should write your own commentaries. You are not doing so well with some of the current ones.

 

[Cypress]

Not much of a theologian,are you? So in your estimation God has contingency plans. That's a pathetic view of the Almighty.

What Winman has said is in no way a diminished view of God. Less powerful in my opinion would certainly be a God who was unable to deal with the free choices of humans that he creates and sustains. Even if you don't agree with lfw, the God of those who hold to lfw demonstrates much more in the way of unlimited ability by allowing freedom and accomplishing all that He determines to accomplish within that framework. Neither side feels that God is not almighty in any case.

 

[quantumfaith]

What Winman has said is in no way a diminished view of God. Less powerful in my opinion would certainly be a God who was unable to deal with the free choices of humans that he creates and sustains. Even if you don't agree with lfw, the God of those who hold to lfw demonstrates much more in the way of unlimited ability by allowing freedom and accomplishing all that He determines to accomplish within that framework. Neither side feels that God is not almighty in any case.

:applause::applause::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[psalms109:31]

Winman

I never really compared the ESV with the KJB with those verses, but what I tried to do is compare the 1 Chronicles 21: 1-2 and 2 Samuel 24:1 the one in the middle just felt fitting.

1 Chronicles 21: 1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”

Matthew 4
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[The Greek for tempted can also mean tested.] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[Deut. 8:3]”


2 Samuel 24:1
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on God being the author of sin.

I rarely referrence confessions but thought it would be appropriate here.

" The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

- http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Chapter V Number IV

I disagree with that confession in that point (also in it's sacramentology). It stops short of reality. I hold the supralapsarian position and believe the infralapsarian position is a compromise and is inconsistant. Infralapsarianism chips away the foundations of reformed theology.

So that is simply an example of why the confessions are not inerrant.

Here is what Vincent Cheung says about this topic:

When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are
too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and
writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination,"2 and some
kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,3 and yet still leave God
with total sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God
the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, "So what?" Even Christians who disagree
with me stupidly chant, "But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of
sin…." However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have
never come across a half-decent explanation as to what's wrong with God being the
author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any
perspective.
The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational
problem with him being the author of sin. For it to be a problem, it must make some point
of Christianity false, or contradict some passage of Scripture. But if God is the author of
sin, how does it make Christianity false? One must construct an argument showing this
by citing established premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity
would be false if God is the author of sin. What is this argument? And what passage of
Scripture does it contradict? You can cite any passage you want, but you have to show
that it necessarily applies to the question and makes it impossible for God to be the author
of sin. Where is this passage of Scripture?

Link: http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Not much of a theologian,are you? So in your estimation God has contingency plans. That's a pathetic view of the Almighty.

It's very close to open theism.

 

[jbh28]

I disagree with that confession in that point (also in it's sacramentology). It stops short of reality. I hold the supralapsarian position and believe the infralapsarian position is a compromise and is inconsistant. Infralapsarianism chips away the foundations of reformed theology.

supralapsarianism over emphasizes certain truths such as this. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that God is the author of sin. And I'm not really concerned if anything chips away at reformed theology.

Here is Piper explaining how God isn't the author of sin.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/does-god-emauthorem-sin

 

[Osage Bluestem]

supralapsarianism over emphasizes certain truths such as this. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that God is the author of sin. And I'm not really concerned if anything chips away at reformed theology.

Here is Piper explaining how God isn't the author of sin.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/does-god-emauthorem-sin

It's really quite simple. If God decreed the fall, he is indeed the author of sin. If God is sovereign and decrees whatsoever comes to pass, he is the author of sin.

It doesn't make him bad or a sinner. As Genesis 50:20 explains a sin that God authored God meant it for good and Joseph's brothers meant it for evil.

One is culpable for what's in their heart and their intent. God is all good and all things work out for good because he is the author of reality. Finite beings are not and do things without knowledge of their results with evil intent. That is why God is the judge and is the only one that can judge.

Edit: That article is saying the same thing as me. They however are defining "author" to somehow mean culpable. It does not. It simply means the one who designed and decreed the sinnning, not the one who did the sinning. They have tripped over themselves on this one.

 

[jbh28]

It's really quite simple. If God decreed the fall, he is indeed the author of sin. If God is sovereign and decrees whatsoever comes to pass, he is the author of sin.

That's not what most reformed writers say. And it's not logical. God decreed that the fall would happen, I agree. But that doesn't make him the author of the sin that Adam committed.

It doesn't make him bad or a sinner. As Genesis 50:20 explains a sin that God authored God meant it for good and Joseph's brothers meant it for evil.

It doesn't say that God authored the sin. The brothers did the sin.

One is culpable for what's in their heart and their intent. God is all good and all things work out for good because he is the author of reality. Finite beings are not and do things without knowledge of their results with evil intent. That is why God is the judge and is the only one that can judge.

Edit: That article is saying the same thing as me. They however are defining "author" to somehow mean culpable. It does not. It simply means the one who designed and decreed the sinnning, not the one who did the sinning. They have tripped over themselves on this one.

Well, that's not how most view it when they use the term "author of sin" so it might be wise to stick to that.

It almost seems that you are taking away the fact that people have choices and make them. It's very difficult to understand the sovereignty of God and man's choices. I believe them both. Where we get into trouble is when we over emphasize one to the point of almost denying the other.

Remember, though God is sovereign and everything works towards the ordained end, man is the one that made the choice to sin. He did the sinning. He came up with the sin to do. He is responsible for that sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's not what most reformed writers say. And it's not logical. God decreed that the fall would happen, I agree. But that doesn't make him the author of the sin that Adam committed.

It doesn't say that God authored the sin. The brothers did the sin.
Well, that's not how most view it when they use the term "author of sin" so it might be wise to stick to that.

It almost seems that you are taking away the fact that people have choices and make them. It's very difficult to understand the sovereignty of God and man's choices. I believe them both. Where we get into trouble is when we over emphasize one to the point of almost denying the other.

Remember, though God is sovereign and everything works towards the ordained end, man is the one that made the choice to sin. He did the sinning. He came up with the sin to do. He is responsible for that sin.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That's not what most reformed writers say. And it's not logical. God decreed that the fall would happen, I agree. But that doesn't make him the author of the sin that Adam committed.

It doesn't say that God authored the sin. The brothers did the sin.
Well, that's not how most view it when they use the term "author of sin" so it might be wise to stick to that.

It almost seems that you are taking away the fact that people have choices and make them. It's very difficult to understand the sovereignty of God and man's choices. I believe them both. Where we get into trouble is when we over emphasize one to the point of almost denying the other.

Remember, though God is sovereign and everything works towards the ordained end, man is the one that made the choice to sin. He did the sinning. He came up with the sin to do. He is responsible for that sin.

Ok. I agree that the word author should be replaced by the word ordainer.

I communicated with a theologian friend of mine this morning who said the following:

It is one thing for God to decree or ordain sin, it is quite another thing for Him to be the Author or the cause of it. God can ordain something to come to pass and not be the cause of it coming to pass. The murder of Christ is an example. Peter says in Acts that God ordained the death of Christ, but wicked men killed Him. For God to be the Author of sin, you'd have to show that He put something in their heart to do that wasn't there already. You'd have to show that it was His impetus that brought something about that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

Wicked men do what they do because they hate God, not because God has made them do something they didn't want to do already.

Does that help at all?

So, it seems that the word author doesn't communicate the same thing as decree or ordain communicate theologically.

I think what has happened is Mr. Cheung used the word author to describe ordination and declaration. Mr. Cheung in no way used author to assign blame or culpability to God.

I agree that since author is understood as it in in theology we should avoid it and stick with decree or ordain, so as not to cause confusion.

 

[psalms109:31]

Ordained

Just because something is ordained to happen doesn't mean you have to jump in with everyone else, you have a free will choice given by God.

Just like Lucifer when he turned away from what he was ordained for, to be a guardian cherub.