"God-ordained sin"? 1 Kings 22:22-23, Exodus 4:21 and Genesis 50:20

[Ben johnson]

Does God ordain sins of men? Many Calvinists say “yes”. How can a perfect God, who hates sin, desire that men DO sin? Calvinists say “that God may be glorified”. God is glorified by sin-that-He-hates?

In 1Kings22, God “sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets”, that King Ahab be enticed into a losing battle. Notice those verses are spoken to Ahab, before the battle. So Ahab willfully chose, and he was brought down because of his sin.

In Exodus 4:21 another attempt is made to establish that “God ordained Pharaoh to sin, and hardened his heart to NOT let the Israelites go”; but it reflects Exodus 10:1 (“God hardened Pharaoh’s heart&#8221, and Exodus9:34 (“when Pharaoh saw the rain and hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned and hardened his own heart&#8221. Scripture often ascribes to God things men do themselves.

In Genesis 50:20 , Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery --- but what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Genesis 37 recounts the plot against Joseph. The brothers were jealous because Israel loved Joseph more, and because Joseph told them of the dream where “they would bow down before him”. It was jealousy that caused the brothers to sin by enslaving Joseph; there is no hint that God caused their sin; He simply “used what they meant for evil, to accomplish good.”

None of these verses establish that "God ordains the sins of men".

 

[DArceri]

Does God ordain sins of men? Many Calvinists say “yes”. How can a perfect God, who hates sin, desire that men DO sin? Calvinists say “that God may be glorified”. God is glorified by sin-that-He-hates?

In 1Kings22, God “sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets”, that King Ahab be enticed into a losing battle. Notice those verses are spoken to Ahab, before the battle. So Ahab willfully chose, and he was brought down because of his sin.

In Exodus 4:21 another attempt is made to establish that “God ordained Pharaoh to sin, and hardened his heart to NOT let the Israelites go”; but it reflects Exodus 10:1 (“God hardened Pharaoh’s heart&#8221, and Exodus9:34 (“when Pharaoh saw the rain and hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned and hardened his own heart&#8221. Scripture often ascribes to God things men do themselves.

In Genesis 50:20 , Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery --- but what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Genesis 37 recounts the plot against Joseph. The brothers were jealous because Israel loved Joseph more, and because Joseph told them of the dream where “they would bow down before him”. It was jealousy that caused the brothers to sin by enslaving Joseph; there is no hint that God caused their sin; He simply “used what they meant for evil, to accomplish good.”

None of these verses establish that "God ordains the sins of men".

I guess we as humans have to stand back and let God be God..... What is the "supreme higher commitment" of God? Is it the Glorification of His sovereign grace, or is it saving every sinful soul on the planet no matter what? Let's just remember we all deserve death "for all have sinned and fall short of His Glory".

Duet 29:29
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever..."

 

[Ben johnson]

I guess we as humans have to stand back and let God be God.....

Amen.

What is the "supreme higher commitment" of God? Is it His Glorification or is it saving every sinful soul on the planet?

If God hates sin (and He does), how is He glorified by sin?

I started this post in response to a specific question about these verses; but you, Darceri, and anyone, are more than welcome for your input. The question concerns the difference between "Reformed Theology" (hence the idea of "ordained sin for the unelect"), and "Responsible Grace" (which holds that men make choices) to abide either in Christ, or in sin.

And we of "Responsible Grace" do perceive that "God desires every man to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth."

It's expected that we won't all come to agreement; but Calvinists or not, we're brothers and sisters in Christ here, and I pray the discussion will promote fellowship between us, and maturity in Jesus.

 

[DArceri]

Amen. If God hates sin (and He does), how is He glorified by sin?

I started this post in response to a specific question about these verses; but you, Darceri, and anyone, are more than welcome for your input. The question concerns the difference between "Reformed Theology" (hence the idea of "ordained sin for the unelect"), and "Responsible Grace" (which holds that men make choices) to abide either in Christ, or in sin.

And we of "Responsible Grace" do perceive that "God desires every man to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth."

It's expected that we won't all come to agreement; but Calvinists or not, we're brothers and sisters in Christ here, and I pray the discussion will promote fellowship between us, and maturity in Jesus.

Hey Ben,
Well I don't claim to be an extreme Calvanist but I do believe it is only God who can awaken us spiritually, for we are "spiritually dead" to begin with. To answer your question, there are times God's sovereign will has to play out for the good of all (and His glory). The greatest example would be the role sin played in the death of His son Jesus. God preordained this event to take place and as a result of man's sin against Jesus, God was glorified. There are many other sovereign acts of God that glorify Him whether we realize it or not. For example, God allowing Israel to be spiritually blinded (ie. continuous sinning against God) so that gentiles can find salvation. You see, by allowing sin, grace abounded even more.


There is a pretty in-depth article by John Piper entitled, "Are there Two Wills in God?". It's kind of long so you'll need to probably print it out and take your time reading it later.

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

 

[nobdysfool]

Does God ordain sins of men? Many Calvinists say “yes”. How can a perfect God, who hates sin, desire that men DO sin? Calvinists say “that God may be glorified”. God is glorified by sin-that-He-hates?

Besides your opening argument being based on human reasoning, rather than God's Word, you are not considering the implications of what you're saying. Your problem is in defining the problem as God desiring that men sin, as though He gets some sort of pleasure out of it. That is to cast the argument in an emotional frame of reference, rather than on solid biblical grounds.

In 1Kings22, God “sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets”, that King Ahab be enticed into a losing battle. Notice those verses are spoken to Ahab, before the battle. So Ahab willfully chose, and he was brought down because of his sin.

1Ki 22:19-22 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; (20) and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. (21) Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' (22) And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'


Here, you allow that God sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets that Ahab consulted, but you want to run away from the implications of it. It is clear from the scripture that God desired that Ahab fall at Ramoth-gilead. Therefore, we have God's express Will in the matter. We see that God asked, "Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" That shows that this is what he willed to happen. God needed someone to entice Ahab, and a spirit volunteered, and said how he would do it. God approved of it, and sent the spirit to do as he said, and Ahab listened to the lying spirit speaking through his prophets, and fell at Ramoth-gilead, as God willed.

We see into the working of heaven just a little here, showing how God brings about His Will through secondary causes, and also shows His sovereignty over the affairs of all men, even the wicked.

In Exodus 4:21 another attempt is made to establish that “God ordained Pharaoh to sin, and hardened his heart to NOT let the Israelites go”; but it reflects Exodus 10:1 (“God hardened Pharaoh’s heart&#8221, and Exodus9:34 (“when Pharaoh saw the rain and hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned and hardened his own heart&#8221. Scripture often ascribes to God things men do themselves.

Exo 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.

If anything, Exodus 9 and 10 reflect Exodus 4, which is the first declaration of the matter. To say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, as though God had nothing to do with it, is to deny God's own statement in the matter which He made before Moses even went to Egypt. That Pharaoh hardened his heart is proof that men do exactly as God Wills, even the heathen.

Your statement that "Scripture often ascribes to God things men do themselves." is actually a denial of God's Sovereignty, because if you take that statement to it's logical conclusion, scripture cannot be believed where it says that God did this, or God did that, or God willed this, or God willed that. Such a statement "explains away" all of God's actions as really the actions, will, and intent of men.

Your statement is Liberal theology condensed into one sentence.

In Genesis 50:20 , Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery --- but what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Genesis 37 recounts the plot against Joseph. The brothers were jealous because Israel loved Joseph more, and because Joseph told them of the dream where “they would bow down before him”. It was jealousy that caused the brothers to sin by enslaving Joseph; there is no hint that God caused their sin; He simply “used what they meant for evil, to accomplish good.”

Gen 50:20 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.

Here, you try to lessen the impact by saying that God used what the brothers did, to bring about good. That's not what it says. The Hebrew word châshab , is used both to describe the brothers' intent, and to describe God's intent. God didn't just use what the brothers did, and twist it around in order to wring good out of it, God willed that it should happen, to get Joseph to Egypt, and set the stage for the Hebrews to come to Egypt and be saved from the drought in the land of Canaan. I would think that should be obvious. The plain reading of the text shows this to be so.

Ben, do you think God is just "making it up" as we go along? Or is He in complete control?

It's the difference between God reacting to what man does, trying to clean up the mess, so to speak, and God ordaining and bringing about those things which He has Willed and intends, and using even the wicked acts of wicked men to bring that which He has purposed to fruition, in spite of wicked men.

one of these verses establish that "God ordains the sins of men".

On the contrary. ALL of them establish that God is in control of and directs the acts of wicked men so that those actions accomplish His Will and Purpose.

 

[nobdysfool]

Amen. If God hates sin (and He does), how is He glorified by sin?

Your failure to understand does not set aside the fact that God is glorified by His victory over sin. You cannot deny that God has allowed sin in His Creation, and if He allows it, sin must serve a purpose, otherwise He wouldn't have allowed it. You are failing to understand the viewpoint of the Reformed, and are trying to recast the argument in emotional terms. No one denies that God hates sin. but scripture shows over and over again that God uses sin as a tool, and overcomes sin and thereby gets glory unto Himself, which is His intent, that He glorify himself not only in the salvation of sinners, but in the Justice dispensed in judging sinners.

I started this post in response to a specific question about these verses; but you, Darceri, and anyone, are more than welcome for your input. The question concerns the difference between "Reformed Theology" (hence the idea of "ordained sin for the unelect"), and "Responsible Grace" (which holds that men make choices) to abide either in Christ, or in sin.

Let's nip that false distinction in the bud. Reformed Theology also teaches that men make choices, and we have never denied it. The difference is, Reformed Theology teaches that men make their choices within the framework of God's Will and Purpose, and RG wants to say that men make choices apart from God's Will, i.e. in a vacuum. RG doesn't want to acknowledge the full effect of sin on fallen mankind, or its implications. This has been well established.

And we of "Responsible Grace" do perceive that "God desires every man to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth."

Reformed Theology does not deny this, but rather faces the reality that not all men will come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved, and we can show why that is, where RG tends to avoid that question, and is content to believe that God doesn't always get his Way, and blames it on man.

RT believes that God ALWAYS gets His Way, and things happen exactly as He has Willed, intended, and Purposed.

It's expected that we won't all come to agreement; but Calvinists or not, we're brothers and sisters in Christ here, and I pray the discussion will promote fellowship between us, and maturity in Jesus.

Someday we will come to agreement, and I have a hunch that we all will have some surprises and some adjustments to our theology. I just think it will be a bigger adjustment for the RG side, than it will be for the RT side. But that's just my personal opinion....

 

[Ben johnson]

Hey Ben,

Hi, Darceri!

Well I don't claim to be an extreme Calvinist but I do believe it is only God who can awaken us spiritually, for we are "spiritually dead" to begin with.

Please show me, anywhere, that "spiritual awakening happens before belief". I've not found it.

In Eph2:5-8, Paul writes: "WHEN you were dead in your sins, God made you alive --- by grace ...through faith have you been saved." Can we deny that faith-to-make-us-alive happened WHEN we were dead? It's pretty clear, isn't it?

In 1Cor1, "men's wisdom is foolishness to God, and God's wisdom is foolishness to man; but God was well-pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached, to save those who believe." If we were "regenerated/made-alive" BEFORE belief, then we could not believe THROUGH the foolishness, could we? The "message" would have to change to "wisdom", BEFORE (and so that we can) believe.

To answer your question, there are times God's sovereign will has to play out for the good of all (and His glory).

Again, show me "God wills (boulemai-decrees) any person to be saved" --- it's not there. His Sovereign will (thelema-desire), is that "all who see Jesus AND BELIEVE, may be saved."

The greatest example would be the role sin played in the death of His son Jesus. God preordained this event to take place and as a result of man's sin against Jesus, God was glorified.

So how does the sin of those-who-perish, now, glorify God? Scripture is opposed to the idea that "God desires anyone to perish". Instead, Luke records (Acts17:30) b"God commands all men everywhere to repent". Ezekiel wrote "God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live." 18:24 Hebrews 12 says "If you are WITHOUT discipline, then you are illigetimate and not sons. We had earthly fathers who disciplined us; SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, and live?"

Jesus was ordained before time (1Pet1:20-21); but God did not ordain the sins of those who crucified Him. This is parallel to the Genesis 50 verse here, where the sin of Joseph's brothers was not ordained; but God took what was meant for evil and used it for good.

There are many other sovereign acts of God that glorify Him whether we realize it or not. For example, God allowing Israel to be spiritually blinded (ie. continuous sinning against God) so that gentiles can find salvation. You see, by allowing sin, grace abounded even more.

Question --- did God allow the Israelites to be blinded, or did God BLIND them? In Rom9, the Israelites failed to achieve righteousness because they pursued it by WORKS rather than by FAITH. And we are told not to "fail to enter God's rest, by imitating (the Israelites') disobedience and unbelief". Heb4:11

There is a pretty in-depth article by John Piper entitled, "Are there Two Wills in God?". It's kind of long so you'll need to probably print it out and take your time reading it later.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceL..._Wills_in_God/

Piper is easy to refute; he's been soundly refuted here several times.

It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 may well mean groups like "kings and all in high positions" (v. 2).

It's not "may well mean", it does mean that. And by stating "kings and all in authority", he clearly exceeds the scope of "few-saved".

Note that God desires-to-be-saved, some who WILL NOT be saved. This established fact denies the passage to be twisted into "God desires for all-few-predestined to be saved".

It is also possible that the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9 ("the Lord is longsuffering toward you, not wishing any to perish") refers not to every person in the world but to "you" professing Christians among whom, as Adolf Schlatter says, "are people who only through repentance can attain to the grace of God and to the promised inheritance."

The Greek has a rare use of "boulema", decree; "God does not DECREE (boulemai) any to perish, but patiently waits/makes-room (choreo) for all to repent." This cannot be twisted into "God does not decree to perish any-whom-He-has-decreed-NOT-perish, but patiently waits for those-decreed-saved to repent (who will repent 'cause repentance is GIFTED by God)."

Throughout Piper's treatise is faulty interpretation and prior understanding. He actually asserts that there is a difference between what God would LIKE to see happen and what God WILLS to happen.

God WANTS to be saved, those He does not WANT to be saved? Yes.

Yet God does not decree repentance, nor faith; in Heb11:6 God RECEIVES those who come to Him BY faith. In Acts10:34-35, "God is not partial; but he who reveres God and does right, is welcome." Notice that "partial" is defined as "God receives reverers/righteous".

By definition, God receiving those who are NOT reverers and who do NOT seek righteousness, as Reformed Theology asserts ("God regenerates the heart so that man CAN believe and CAN seek Him"), is the "partiality" that Peter just said "GOD IS NOT".

Jesus expressed this same truth when he explained that one of the purposes of speaking in parables to the Jews of his day was to bring about this judicial blinding or stupor. In Mark 4:11-12 he said to his disciples, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." Here again God wills that a condition prevail which he regards as blameworthy. His will is that they turn and be forgiven (Mark 1:15), but he acts in a way to restrict the fulfillment of that will.

This has been soundly refuted, merely by reading Matt13:15: "They close their OWN eyes and ears lest they turn and I should heal them.""

Do you understand that? It has not been given to them to understand the Kingdom's mysteries because they closed their OWN eyes and ears.

Thus, Piper is fully refuted on this.

Paul pictures this divine hardening as part of an overarching plan that will involve salvation for Jew and Gentile. In Romans 11:25-26 he says to his Gentile readers, "Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved." The fact that the hardening has an appointed end—"until the full number of the Gentiles comes in"—shows that it is part of God's plan rather than a merely contingent event outside God's purpose. Nevertheless Paul expresses not only his but also God's heart when he says in Romans 10:1, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is their salvation." God holds out his hands to a rebellious people (Romans 10:21), but ordains a hardening that consigns them for a time to disobedience.

How can Piper read this, and ignore Rom11:21-23?

"Do not be arrogant towards the branches that were broken off; they were broken off for unbelief, you stand by faith. Behold the kindness and severity of God --- to those who fell, severity; but to you, God's kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness else YOU will ALSO be cut off. And they also --- if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again."

There is no way to make that passage fit "predestined-faith". No way at all.

The point of Romans 11:31 therefore is that God's hardening of Israel is not an end in itself, but is part of a saving purpose that will embrace all the nations. But in the short run we have to say that he wills a condition (hardness of heart) which he commands people to strive against ("Do not harden your heart" (Hebrews 3:8, 15; 4:7).

They were hardened by their own disobedience and unbelief. To say "God hardened them", is equivalent to saying "they hardened themselves" (just as Pharaoh "hardened his OWN heart" in Exodus 9:34).

Look at the dynamic in Heb3:8-14 --- "Do not HARDEN YOUR HEART; ...take care, lest there be in any one of you a heart hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God; we are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

Do you see that as we study more and more Scripture, the idea of "predestined-election" and "sovereign monergistic regeneration (or hardening)", becomes more and more difficult to support?

We could continue to refute Piper, as we have just done; but that would make a very long post. Let's just address this paragraph:

The first thing to affirm in view of all these texts is that God does not sin. "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:3). "God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). In ordering all things, including sinful acts, God is not sinning. For as Jonathan Edwards says, "It implies no contradiction to suppose that an act may be an evil act, and yet that it is a good thing that such an act should come to pass. . . As for instance, it might be an evil thing to crucify Christ, but yet it was a good thing that the crucifying of Christ came to pass." In other words the Scriptures lead us to the insight that God can will that a sinful act come to pass without willing it as an act of sin in himself.

He soundly misses the point of James' words.
"God tempts no one; but each is tempted when enticed and carried away by his own lust. Then lust conceived brings sin, and sin brings death. DO NOT be deceived, beloved brethren." James1;13-16

Do not be deceived beloved brethren --- speaking to the SAVED.
Each is tempted when carried away by his own lust.
Lust concieved, births sin, and sin brings death.

Conspicuously using "thanatos", can only mean "death and Hell".

This verse is IDENTICAL to the Hebrews 3"8-14 passage, warning us "not to be deceived by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God, to DEATH".

And Piper completely misses the point, as he missed the point in Romans11:21-23...

Darceri, it's clear your heart pursues God; I have no intent to damage your faith --- I just want to show you that "God receives man's faith, He doesn't author it". As such, life is a continuous walk --- please read Col2:6-8, where we're warned to "walk in Christ, guarding ourselves that empty deception and worldly philosophy doesn't lead us away from Christ". We must be "diligent about our calling and election (against the man who WAS purified, but now has FALLEN) --- so that the gates of Heaven BE provided to us". 2Pet1:5-10

Whether all of us come to agreement on this, isn't important; whether we persevere together in Him, is. I want each of you, and myself, to always grow ever stronger in Him.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hey Ben,
Well I don't claim to be an extreme Calvanist but I do believe it is only God who can awaken us spiritually, for we are "spiritually dead" to begin with. To answer your question, there are times God's sovereign will has to play out for the good of all (and His glory). The greatest example would be the role sin played in the death of His son Jesus. God preordained this event to take place and as a result of man's sin against Jesus, God was glorified. There are many other sovereign acts of God that glorify Him whether we realize it or not. For example, God allowing Israel to be spiritually blinded (ie. continuous sinning against God) so that gentiles can find salvation. You see, by allowing sin, grace abounded even more.


There is a pretty in-depth article by John Piper entitled, "Are there Two Wills in God?". It's kind of long so you'll need to probably print it out and take your time reading it later.

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

And, as you've seen, Ben is starting to unpack his arsenal of confusion. And, he makes it clear that he will not allow any Calvinist understanding to go unchallenged and attempt to bury it under a bunch of faulty reasoning, twisting of scriptures, and quoting out of context, and with no regard to whom the writer was speaking, which has a major impact on how the scripture is understood. Ben has a bad habit of applying scriptures spoken to Believers to all men without exception. Thus he draws many false conclusions.

Pick one or two, and focus on those. Ben doesn't like to focus.

 

[Ben johnson]

And, as you've seen, Ben is starting to unpack his arsenal of confusion. And, he makes it clear that he will not allow any Calvinist understanding to go unchallenged and attempt to bury it under a bunch of faulty reasoning, twisting of scriptures, and quoting out of contexct, and with no regard to whom the writer was speaking, which has a major impact on how the scripture is understood. Ben has a bad habit of applying scriptures spoken to Believers to all men without exception. Thus he draws many false conclusions.

Pick one or two, and focus on those. Ben doesn't like to focus.

Darceri can speak for himself, NBF. My previous post wasn't even slightly "unfocused" or "faulty". If it was, then show me the faults, rather than "blanket", or personal slights like "Ben doesn't like to focus".

My post was long, because 2/3 of it was refuting Piper. Which I did --- not I, but Scripture.

Please pick a point or two, and show me "how I'm wrong", rather than just a general condemation.

 

[Ben johnson]

Here, you allow that God sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets that Ahab consulted, but you want to run away from the implications of it. It is clear from the scripture that God desired that Ahab fall at Ramoth-gilead. Therefore, we have God's express Will in the matter. We see that God asked, "Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" That shows that this is what he willed to happen. God needed someone to entice Ahab, and a spirit volunteered, and said how he would do it. God approved of it, and sent the spirit to do as he said, and Ahab listened to the lying spirit speaking through his prophets, and fell at Ramoth-gilead, as God willed.

And yet, these things were told to Ahab's FACE, BEFORE the battle --- he went into battle ANYWAY.

We see into the working of heaven just a little here, showing how God brings about His Will through secondary causes, and also shows His sovereignty over the affairs of all men, even the wicked.

By ordaining sin? No.

To say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, as though God had nothing to do with it, is to deny God's own statement in the matter which He made before Moses even went to Egypt. That Pharaoh hardened his heart is proof that men do exactly as God Wills, even the heathen.

No, it demonstrates the "Semitic View", where God is ascribed with things that men do themselves. We cannot discount all the verses that say "do not harden your heart ...away from God".

Here, you try to lessen the impact by saying that God used what the brothers did, to bring about good. That's not what it says. The Hebrew word châshab , is used both to describe the brothers' intent, and to describe God's intent. God didn't just use what the brothers did, and twist it around in order to wring good out of it, God willed that it should happen, to get Joseph to Egypt, and set the stage for the Hebrews to come to Egypt and be saved from the drought in the land of Canaan. I would think that should be obvious. The plain reading of the text shows this to be so.

Yet the brothers made their own choice. We cannot perceive God as "authoring sin", on any level. God cannot tempt, cannot cause sin.

Ben, do you think God is just "making it up" as we go along? Or is He in complete control?

Was it God's choice that so many Jews were killed in Nazi Germany? We cannot blame God for evil in the world.

It's the difference between God reacting to what man does, trying to clean up the mess, so to speak, and God ordaining and bringing about those things which He has Willed and intends, and using even the wicked acts of wicked men to bring that which He has purposed to fruition, in spite of wicked men

Exactly it --- which does God do, receive our faith or cause it?

Scripture says "receive". Heb11:6.

 

[Ben johnson]

Your failure to understand does not set aside the fact that God is glorified by His victory over sin. You cannot deny that God has allowed sin in His Creation, and if He allows it, sin must serve a purpose, otherwise He wouldn't have allowed it. You are failing to understand the viewpoint of the Reformed, and are trying to recast the argument in emotional terms. No one denies that God hates sin. but scripture shows over and over again that God uses sin as a tool, and overcomes sin and thereby gets glory unto Himself, which is His intent, that He glorify himself not only in the salvation of sinners, but in the Justice dispensed in judging sinners.

There is no "justice" in God judging what God has ordained.

Perfect God, cannot tempt, and cannot be responsible for sin.

Let's nip that false distinction in the bud. Reformed Theology also teaches that men make choices, and we have never denied it. The difference is, Reformed Theology teaches that men make their choices within the framework of God's Will and Purpose, and RG wants to say that men make choices apart from God's Will, i.e. in a vacuum. RG doesn't want to acknowledge the full effect of sin on fallen mankind, or its implications. This has been well established.

But our difference is that RT says "man has free will", whilst also asserting that "free will" is fully constrained either to depravity (for the unelect) or righteousness (for the monergistically-regenerated).

A will that cannot choose (except within boundaries dictated by someone else), is not free.

Reformed Theology does not deny this, but rather faces the reality that not all men will come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved, and we can show why that is, where RG tends to avoid that question, and is content to believe that God doesn't always get his Way, and blames it on man.

RT believes that God ALWAYS gets His Way, and things happen exactly as He has Willed, intended, and Purposed.

I look forward to your response to what I said to Darceri, in a post that was "pointed" and "sound".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ordain is like commission. Did God commission man to sin, or; is it man's mission to sin? Could be.

Lucifer and the angels made a willful decision that was destructive to the kingdom of God. Sin did not exist at that time, and what they did was not yet a 'sin'.

God then fashioned the concept of 'sin' and imputed it to that act of rebellion.

God created a foundational body of the knowledge of sin and infused it into the nature of the man (a virtual law in his members).

God then instructed man to overcome 'sin' using his own resources, knowing that this could not be done.

So then, what is God's responsibility in regard to the 'sinfulness' of man?

 

[DArceri]

Hi, Darceri!
Please show me, anywhere, that "spiritual awakening happens before belief". I've not found it.

Well, you can "believe", but what good is only head knowledge? OK, Jesus died on the cross? OK...NOW WHAT? How many people "brought up" in christian homes end up non-believers. They are preached and taught to believe in Christ but that obviously doesn't convict a spiritually discerned person. It isn't enough. Without God's Spirit, belief in the "cross" is superficial and thus meaningless. It is ONLY when the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirit that genuine conviction of the heart and true repentence can occur. Then you become a child of God. Those who don't recieve the Holy Spirit will never be spiritually awakened and thus will never be children of God. They lead a life of self-centeredness and never are given the "gifts of the Spirit" or show "fruit of the Spirit". They are spritually dead vessels who have no grasp of spiritual truth or reality?

Rom 8:16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God

1 cor 2:14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

Phil 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him...

In Eph2:5-8, Paul writes: "WHEN you were dead in your sins, God made you alive --- by grace ...through faith have you been saved." Can we deny that faith-to-make-us-alive happened WHEN we were dead? It's pretty clear, isn't it?

Well, I take this to read that it is only by God's grace that we are awakened spiritually and thus are given genuine faith to believe. Because this is "NOT OF OUR OWN DOING".

In 1Cor1, "men's wisdom is foolishness to God, and God's wisdom is foolishness to man; but God was well-pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached, to save those who believe."

If we were "regenerated/made-alive" BEFORE belief, then we could not believe THROUGH the foolishness, could we?

Well again, "head knowledge belief" is useless. After looking at the whole passage, I take the phrase, "those who believe" to mean those believers who have been already spiritually blessed and convicted. For throughout the passage it mentions the power of God. It is God who enables our "saving faith" and thus genuine belief. It is not because "of our own doing". (See all comments above..... It all ties in.)

1 Cor:
18....., but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
24......but to those who are called,.....the power of God and the wisdom of God.
27......But God chose ......; God chose
28.....God chose ......
29.....so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
30......And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,....
31.....so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

Quote:
by Piper
Jesus expressed this same truth when he explained that one of the purposes of speaking in parables to the Jews of his day was to bring about this judicial blinding or stupor. In Mark 4:11-12 he said to his disciples, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." Here again God wills that a condition prevail which he regards as blameworthy. His will is that they turn and be forgiven (Mark 1:15), but he acts in a way to restrict the fulfillment of that will.

This has been soundly refuted, merely by reading Matt13:15: "They close their OWN eyes and ears lest they turn and I should heal them.""

Do you understand that? It has not been given to them to understand the Kingdom's mysteries because they closed their OWN eyes and ears.

Thus, Piper is fully refuted on this.

Well, God has blessed them throughout history (revealing Himself in miracles and what-not) yet they continue in their corrupt ways and thus reject Him. So He is giving to them what they want (and thus hardens their hearts). But Ben, even though the nation of Israel has been blessed (chosen) in the past, where does it say that the nation of Israel as a whole had the Holy Spirit come upon them ever in history??? Recieving "revelations" and/or "blessings" and recieving the Spirit of God are not the same thing. It was only specially chosen individuals of Israel that God sent His Spirit to.


Final comment:
It takes two things to bring us to genuine faith. One is the Spirit of God and the other is the Word of God (the Gospel message). BOTH ARE NEEDED.....Atheists can read the bible until they are blue in the face, but it is all "folly" to them. They never have recieved the Spirit of God to understand it yet. The Holy Spirit not only convicts of sin, He convinces men Jesus is the righteousness of God. He shows sinners that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. If one tries to believe without the Holy Spirit ever being sent, they are doomed to fail and are the ones scripture says "they left us because they were never of us".


John 15:26But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Rom 8:16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Does God ordain sins of men?

As the question is worded, I don't think God ordains the sins of men. Romans 11:32 says God has "bound" all men over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on them all. I would say that God "permits" the sins of men. At least for a time.

Many Calvinists say “yes”.

But other Calvinists say "no."

How can a perfect God, who hates sin, desire that men DO sin? Calvinists say “that God may be glorified”. God is glorified by sin-that-He-hates?

I don't think God desires that mankind do sin. That conflicts with 1 Tim 2:4 which says God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

God is glorified by many things, but God is not glorified through blasphemy or by a refusal to acknowledge Him (Rev 16:9).

In 1Kings22, God “sent a deceiving spirit to the prophets”, that King Ahab be enticed into a losing battle. Notice those verses are spoken to Ahab, before the battle. So Ahab willfully chose, and he was brought down because of his sin.

Yes, Ahab was responsible for his own choice and his own downfall. Ahab also was responsible for the death of Naboth and taking his vineyard. God judged him, then Ahab repented, and then God relented (1 Kings 21:18-29). Pretty fascinating how an unsaved man's repentance led God to relent from what He had already declared.

In Exodus 4:21 another attempt is made to establish that “God ordained Pharaoh to sin, and hardened his heart to NOT let the Israelites go”; but it reflects Exodus 10:1 (“God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”), and Exodus9:34 (“when Pharaoh saw the rain and hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned and hardened his own heart”). Scripture often ascribes to God things men do themselves.

Yes, Pharaoh and God were "working together" on the hardening - but with the opposite results in mind.

In Genesis 50:20 , Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery --- but what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Genesis 37 recounts the plot against Joseph. The brothers were jealous because Israel loved Joseph more, and because Joseph told them of the dream where “they would bow down before him”. It was jealousy that caused the brothers to sin by enslaving Joseph; there is no hint that God caused their sin; He simply “used what they meant for evil, to accomplish good.”

None of these verses establish that "God ordains the sins of men".

God certainly did not "cause" the brothers to sin. Certainly Jacob and His sons were in a covenant relationship with God. So if one were to say God caused them to sin, then that would imply God causes His followers to sin. So I agree that these verses do not support the idea that God ordains - or causes - the sins of people.

Now how about Judas? That's an interesting issue. What was God's role in Judas' life? Was Judas destined to betray Jesus? If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus....then what would have happened?

LDG

 

[holyrokker]

No one denies that God hates sin. but scripture shows over and over again that God uses sin as a tool, and overcomes sin and thereby gets glory unto Himself, which is His intent, that He glorify himself not only in the salvation of sinners, but in the Justice dispensed in judging sinners.

God is truly beyond amazing! To think that He can take the vilest of sinners, and not only use that man, and the sin itself, to His Glory; but He can even transform this sinner into a man of faith and righteousness.

 

[holyrokker]

Now how about Judas? That's an interesting issue. What was God's role in Judas' life? Was Judas destined to betray Jesus? If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus....then what would have happened?

I don't think God was bound to the actions of Judas. "If" Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, God still could have (and would have) acheived His purpose.

 

[moonbeam]

And yet, these things were told to Ahab's FACE, BEFORE the battle --- he went into battle ANYWAY.

What else would you expect ? ....God desired a particular set of circumstances to occur, in order to achieve a desired result.....which is exactly what He got...one dead Ahab.

No, it demonstrates the "Semitic View", where God is ascribed with things that men do themselves. We cannot discount all the verses that say "do not harden your heart ...away from God".

Ben...did God speak these words...Yes or No "...I will harden his heart, so that he will..." (Exod 4:21)

Was it God's choice that so many Jews were killed in Nazi Germany? We cannot blame God for evil in the world.

Was God surprised at the final figure?...No...He knew what that figue would be before He made Adam.....I conclude that God had some purpose in the holocaust seeing as it is a fact of history....and like any other fact of history an integral part of a cohesive, unified, plan....unfathomable to us in its scope and intricacy.

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think God was bound to the actions of Judas. "If" Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, God still could have (and would have) acheived His purpose.

how !

by accident ?

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't think God was bound to the actions of Judas. "If" Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, God still could have (and would have) acheived His purpose.

It is foolish to speculate what "might" have happened if Judas had not betrayed Jesus, but scripture is clear that Judas was ordained to that end. His betrayal was prophesied beforehand, and Jesus knew from the beginning that it was Judas who would betray him. Jesus chose Judas as one of the twelve, knowing that Judas would betray Him. And, knowing the final end of Judas, and the fact that Jesus said, "it is inevitable that offenses come, but woe to the man by whom they come", it is clear that Judas was not saved, and was never saved, seeing that scripture indicates that Judas regularly pilfered the money from the purse that the Twelve carried as they followed Jesus. A saved man would not steal.

I know that Ben insists that Judas was saved, and then forfeited his salvation, but it is clear that the Eleven (the Twelve minus Judas) were born from above just before Jesus was crucified. Judas was never born again. And he was ordained to his end by God.

 

[nobdysfool]

Darceri can speak for himself, NBF. My previous post wasn't even slightly "unfocused" or "faulty". If it was, then show me the faults, rather than "blanket", or personal slights like "Ben doesn't like to focus".

Ooops! Must have hit a nerve....

Actually Darceri did quite handily poke holes in your usual blizzard of irrelevant rabbit trails.

My post was long, because 2/3 of it was refuting Piper. Which I did --- not I, but Scripture.

Translation: my post was long because I can't be brief about much of anything, especially when the argument is not going well for me.

You attempted to refute Piper, but you didn't succeed. If Piper was that easily refuted, he wouldn't be the theologian that he is.

One thing you seem to be blind to is the unnatural regard you hold for your own posts, and the fact that you not-so-subtly try to equate your posts with scripture itself. You seem to fail to grasp that scripture must be rightly divided in order for it to carry any weight. Anyone can randomly quote scripture to bolster whatever view they want, but that quoting of scripture does not, in and of itself, make that view true or unassailable.

Please pick a point or two, and show me "how I'm wrong", rather than just a general condemation.

You mean like the general condemnation you level against Calvinists?

We'll get to specifics, but in the past, when you've been taken to task that way, you suddenly stop answering, and refuse to answer. That recently happened with Frumanchu, who pinned you down decisively. Now, you won't answer his posts at all. You don't like it when you're pinned and shown to be wrong.