/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>705227

Free will is satanic.

>>705232

Hello fellow calvinbot

>>705253

>Read the start of 2 Thessalonians 2:11. It's pointing back to the previous sentence for the reason why God does this. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

One thing we know for a fact is that when God withholds His grace from someone, it is akin to Him actively doing something. This is see in 2 chronicles 18:20-22

<Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you.”

Despite the fact that the enticing was done by the spirit and God allowed for this enticing to happen if was akin to God being the one who sent the spirit despite the fact that He was merely taking a passive role here by allowing the spirit to do as it wishes. The same goes for Thessalonians. God decided to preserve a group of people for Himself and not let them be deceived "God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth." It wasn't their own efforts that they did receive the truth but God who allowed them to be able to receive it. Same goes for Romans 1.

Also, what's your opinion on Deuteronomy. It seems as though God hardened the kings heart so He had an excuse to punish him. It also reminds me of Proverbs 21:1

<The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

>>705310

>Despite the fact that the enticing was done by the spirit and God allowed for this enticing to happen if was akin to God being the one who sent the spirit

I question this thinking.

>It wasn't their own efforts that they did receive the truth but God who allowed them to be able to receive it. Same goes for Romans 1.

This has no bearing on the point that God is not the author of sin, however. God is not the author of sin.

>It seems as though God hardened the kings heart so He had an excuse to punish him.

The famous example is pharaoh whose heart was hardened by the Lord. However to note is that before this, scripture states that pharaoh had already hardened his own heart. Similar to how in Romans 1:28 God followed suit when the person did not like to retain him in their knowledge, then God gave them up.

You will realize in Romans 1:24 that the thing which God had given them up to was the lusts of their own hearts, something that was already there. We can say God protects a person from temptation (Ex. 2 Peter 2:9), but not that God prescribed or authored a sin, specifically.

>>705313

>I question this thinking.

I'm vs 21 the spirit says "I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets" but I'm vs 22 God says "So now the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours."

You can see what I'm getting at.

>This has no bearing on the point that God is not the author of sin, however. God is not the author of sin.

Absolutely, God is not the author of sin in the sense that He is not the primary cause of it. For example, when God hardened the heart of the pharoah, it was done so by God withholding His grace and allowing for sinful thoughts and feelings. He wasn't a deceiver Himself or the prime causer of that sin, but He allowed it passively which, for aforementioned reasons, is akin to Him actually doing them.

I hope you can follow my line of thinking.

>The famous example is pharaoh whose heart was hardened by the Lord. However to note is that before this, scripture states that pharaoh had already hardened his own heart.

Two mistakes. Firstly, neither proverbs or Deuteronomy is talking about the pharoah. Deuteronomy is talking about king heshbon and proverbs about kings and rulers in general. Secondly, it is commonly stated that the pharoah hardened his own heart before God did but it's stated in the bible that God had already plan to harden his heart before hand as we read in exodus 4:21:

<And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

This was before Moses even went out to meet the pharoah and God is already letting him know what His plan is. And finally we see in exodus 14:17 God garden the pharoah's heart again, after the pharoah finally let the people of Israel go, for reasons mentioned here:

<Even now I’m hardening the heart of the Egyptians so they’ll go after the Israelis. Then I’ll receive honor by means of Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen.

>You will realize in Romans 1:24 that the thing which God had given them up to was the lusts of their own hearts, something that was already there.

I agree and God has the right to let you fall.into the depth of sin righteously for His purpose:

<For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Romans 9:15

1)Even when God hardened Pharaoh, as Victor Hamilton notes in his commentary, he still retains his agency. So non determinists can simply state that God turns an evil will for His ends which must be for Good.

2)Romans simply states the reason for God leaving them is because of their idolatry and giving into degeneracy.

3)Saying "God passively caused it" and then stating that God did it does not absolve God of the deed. Especially since Calvinism is mostly deterministic. If someone winds up a wind up toy but didnt "push" it to move, no one would say the windup toy moves of its own volition. It only moves because of an agency of another who also determines how it moves. Therefore God is the author of sin.

The only way to avoid the implication of sin is to either take Augustine's and Fulgentius' solution where they deserve it and God turning these wills arent the same thing as being predestinated to do those deeds. Or, how God sends His "deceiving Spirit" is done in a manner that isnt determinist and similar to that of Hamilton's and Macafee's take on the issue.

Macafee's analysis leaves little room for a determinist reading

Victor Hamilton's commentary: http://imgur.com/gallery/zWtyG

Macafee on the hardening of Pharaoh:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr20c02.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiA3Jrc98_dAhXIfCsKHawGADIQFjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0L6OR_Cv5cykZ_Xlmjcr1u

>>705328

>1)

This is when tota scriptura comes in and that's when you not only believe that the bible is the ultimate rule of faith but also that all the scripture should be consulted when interpreting text. We read in Ephesians 1:11

<In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

So it very well might be that the pharoah had no agency at all. Also, even if your understanding of it was true, that still wouldn't change the meaning since even some Calvinists, like the ones at my church who I consider to be soft Calvinists, believe that we still have a will. But still, the pharoah's will was effected by God so that He may gain His glory.

>2)

We were talking about Thessalonians but again, with tota scriptura in mind the same idea would apply here.

>3)

The analogy does not quite work since you were active in winding. Rather, God let's things take their course or can stop things from doing so. I would much rather liken it to how God allowed Joseph to be captured by His brothers even though He could have saved Joseph.

>>705347

1)This does not exclude the fact that linguistics and context can enlighten interpretation, which is simply what my reference to commentaries do. So this does not say anything about how Hamilton's summations are wrong or how Macafee isnt right on analysing Piel stems.

Ephesians could also be interpreted as Divine providence working to the ultimate goal where God will be all in all. It doesnt necessitate divine determinism as truth. Also, the issue of will is pointless, as most Calvinists are determinists. The ones that arent are eithier Molinist tier like Norman Geisler, or try to paint Reformed theology in the image of Medieval scholasticism as Richard Muller does. Given how you exegete, the non determinist Reformed route is out of the picture.

2) Adds nothing to the issue. If a verse is not exegeted in accordance with its placement or context. Tota Scriptura isnt going to add anything if nothing about other verses is given.

3)The analogy works. Because Calvinists are mostly determinists. Some like Paul Helm will even say that past, present and future states are "static" which literally makes that analogy works even more. But the thing is, even if Helm is out of the picture, we can still use that analogy for Calvinism because of the fact that they are determinists. Because of this determinism whatever permission God allows, is simply gonna paint a watchmaker picture, or that God is simply permitting in the manner where permission is simply Him being the agency that moves Pharaoh for instance

>>705362

>So this does not say anything about how Hamilton's summations are wrong or how Macafee isnt right on analysing Piel stems.

The commentary is wrong if it states what you have and I have shown this using scripture.

>Ephesians could also be interpreted as Divine providence working to the ultimate goal where God will be all in all.

Yes, and that would involve infringing on the free will of man. Ill give you an example. There where do many variables that had to be taken into consideration to bring about the exact person herod, the exact person potinus pilat and the exact Jews and gentiles who gathered together to crucified Christ. So much as one change could have thrown off the entire plan of God's sovereign decree and so God had to be in control of all. From the creation of the heavens to the waves of the sea:

<You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.

Psalm 89:9

And like I said earlier you need to take in account all of scripture to have the correct presuppositions otherwise you have verses that have multiple possibilities of meaning. But scripture is clear when it states that God is in control of all things:

<Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

>2)

I explained using tota scriptura why you're understanding is wrong.

>3)

This entire section comes from a misunderstanding of James. James is saying that God isn't the primary cause of our sin. By your personal opinion God may still be the cause but by the reasoning of the scriptures, and the reasoning we should all abide by, God is not the causer of sin.

Also, patriarch oregano, is that you?

>>705369

1)No. Because you havent shown how the Hebrew language or context of Exodus would disagree with these sources. So how are they mistaken?

Stating that there are plenty of variables in the course of history doesnt entail God being the one who is in control in a manner that is deterministic. It is ok to say God is in control of it all, with the recognition that this control is not one that infringe on free choice. An omniscient being would by definition know how to get His ends without disrupting anyone's capability of agency

Pslam 89:9 also doesnt state anything about whether it entails your views or not. It means we can trust in God's strength but this doesnt necessitate a deterministic take.

So how can you say you are "tota scriptura", if you are simply not considering the contexts of the other areas of Scripture or taking a verse that does not need to entail determinism to begin with?

3)If by James you mean James White, then my point still stands. His own words in response to Norman Geisler shows that evil isnt just permitted for instance.

>>705322

I remember Paul saying in the New Testament that many of the things in the Old Testament happened as an example

I think many people learn from the mistakes of others not to do bad thing. That’s what I think

>>705378

>1)

Actually, I did and I'll repost it:

>it is commonly stated that the pharoah hardened his own heart before God did but it's stated in the bible that God had already plan to harden his heart before hand as we read in exodus 4:21: And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. This was before Moses even went out to meet the pharoah and God is already letting him know what His plan is. And finally we see in exodus 14:17 God garden the pharoah's heart again, after the pharoah finally let the people of Israel go, for reasons mentioned here: Even now I’m hardening the heart of the Egyptians so they’ll go after the Israelis. Then I’ll receive honor by means of Pharaoh and all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen.

The many variables necessitates that God at all times must be active in His guiding of events in history in order that He may achieve His end goal. And this does mean that He infringes on our free will and not only because of logic but because of scripture themselves such as acts 4:27-28, Deuteronomy 2:30 and exodus 4:21. It's erroneous to say that a omniscient being would by definition know how to get His ends without disrupting anyone's capability of agency since He would have an option to do it either way. And from exegeting scripture we see that the way in which He achieves the goals of His plan is by infringing on the free will of man.

>2)

Psalm 89:9 is about God's power and might and how He is in control of all things. It absolutely supports my view that God is even in control of minute things which is necessary in light of all the variables that could effect God's plan coming to fruition.

>3)

I was referencing James 1:13 since it commonly cited to disprove the Calvinist view on God's sovereignty.

>>705382

Thanks for that comment anon. I think a lot of people like to ignore the OT. Even the name "old" testament implies that is something that should be left behind but there is a treasure of information there that we can all learn from.

Bless you anon.

>>705391

1)This explanation only works if the hardening of Pharaoh isnt determinist in nature. If any the way you phrased this makes God in fact merciful towards him, as He practically given him many chances to change his mind. It seems the main thrust of your point lies in Pharaoh letting the Israelites go but God hardened it moving him opposite to what he originally chosen.

There is one problem here, God told Moses earlier that Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go, unless he is moved by a strong hand as Exodus 3:19 states. This establishes Pharaoh as being strong willed and stubborn against God. So by the narrative's own logic, Pharaoh doesnt want to let the Israelites go at all to begin with. God hardening him is simply reciprocating that desire. This means that one cannot say that God is literally overriding Pharaoh's free will in a manner that his acts are determined by God.

Let's start with the first mention of Pharaoh getting hardened in Exodus 7:13 where in the beginning of the chapter in the KJV version, God said He will harden Pharaoh. This would definitely imply that God is the actor who hardened Pharaoh. Based on this translation alone, we may posit that God indeed hardened Pharaoh at the start. But the Hebraic qal stative used here can only entail this, if context shows it. The problem is in this verse, 8:19, 9:7 and 9:35, there are no textual indicators to posit anything beyond a description of Pharaoh being stubborn. Only at the fifth Plague too does any direct hardening begin which by then is simply reciprocal in nature by reinforcing his stubborness, which he only added to. Sure he eventually says he wants to let the Israelites go but by then given him hardening himself in stubborness and the many people who died because of it, it is too late and that final hardening is a just cause of punishment. It doesnt have to be read deterministically.

Hence we see from this that when God intervenes and exercise providence, it isnt in a manner where free will is gone or divinely coerced as you put it as what is shown is that Pharaoh was given plenty of leg room!

2) God being in control of all things does not entail Him being the author of human acts. Even if we posit limited atonement for the sake of argument, one can just take the Augustinian and Thomist options, which doesnt require us to say that when God turns a person's will say to sin, it means God predestined or ordained the sin. For we say they arent necessitated or coerced. Their dipositions are toward something evil, God uses them for His glory.

3)Ok but I am not talking about James. At least for now.