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

[nobdysfool]

There was no mistake --- God planned to save no person. Rather, He planned that all COULD be saved, if they BELIEVED.
Thanx, brother; I love you too.

Ben, you're scrambling.....I didn't post what you attribute to me, Rick did.

Now, what about what I did post, wherein you actually proved predestination? (Even though you were trying to defeat it)

 

[holdon]

If so, then Jesus is not the savior of the world. He provided potential for salvation- not salvation itself.

"Savior of the world"??? Per your reasoning He could never be...

 

[Ben johnson]

Actually that is the very definition of partiality: Choosing men BECAUSE they revere him and do right.

Can't be --- it's very cleary worded:

NOT partial, BUT welcomes who does right and reveres God". The word "but", means "partial, is the OPPOSITE of God welcoming reverers/do-rights.

Calvinism teaches that God chooses men as you defined it earlier in your post: Because He wants to. He chooses individual men because He wanted to choose them.

Yes, it does. And that makes the Final Judgement, pageantry.

You're not even remaining consistent with your own definitions!

yes-I-yam....

If God chooses men based on whether or not they revere Him and do right, He is basically rewarding good behavior, and the ultimate reason of their being chosen resides within themselves, not within God. Logically, this should be a no-brainer.

God "rewards good behavior"? No --- God "rewards those who SEEK Him". What does Heb11:6 say in your copy?

Therefore, when you read the verse, "Those He foreknew, He predestined", you should not see that foreknowledge as "what they will do, or have done", or any other criteria which takes into account their foreseen actions, but rather He foreknew them as individuals on whom He set His Love, and determined that He would cause them to come to Him and be saved.

"Foreknew", means "those who loved Him". You won't succeed trying to cast it as "God CAUSED them to seek/believe" --- clearly, He receives faith, and rewards seekers.

That does not mean "coerced them", or "violated their free wills as though they were robots" or any of the other ridiculous and false charges leveled against Calvinism by those who manifestly do not, and refuse to, educate themselves as to what Calvinism teaches.

The word "robot", simply is an attempt to convey the doctrine of "they had no choice; either in faith (sovereign election), or rebellion (sovereign non-election)".

I would like to believe that all of us realize and agree that God must draw men to Himself in order for them to be saved.

Show me where any man (who remains unsaved), is not drawn the same as those who believe. The prable of Matt22:2-14 is very clear; all were called, and those who CAME (and put on righteousness), were saved.
"For MANY are called, but FEW are chosen".

That is part of the work of Grace. We may disagree on exactly what that entails, but scripture is clear that God draws men to Himself.

Jesus said "I draw all men". God commands "all men to repent". God "desires all men to be saved". Too many verses oppose "limited atonement".
Jn12:32, Acts17:30, 1Tim2:1-4.

God can so order the lives of those He has chosen in such a way that they will be brought to salvation, without "violating" their "free will", or being "coerced" into doing something they don't want to do. It is ridiculous to charge that Calvinism teaches such nonsense as "coercion", or saving them "against their will". Scripture proves this principle, "the mind of man orders his way, but the Lord directs his steps."

Which comes first --- "God-directing-their-steps"? Or "faith"? Did God direct the steps of the many despots in history (Hilter, Musselini, Stalin, Mao-tse-tung, etcetera)? No.

So, Ben, you need to decide which side of the argument you will land on, because up until now, you have straddled the fence.

Have not. I've ben consistent...

God's foreknowledge with regard to predestination is of individuals, not actions, and their actions do not influence His choice, because if He predestines someone to salvation, their subsequent choices will be unto salvation.

And that's "free will"? It isn't.

Jesus said, "Those WHO act, are wise; those who do NOT act, are foolish." Matt7:24-27

If He were to then look at those choices as a reason to save them, then it is a causal loop. He would be causing the very thing He then uses as the reason to make the choice.

Since the causal loop cancels itself out, you are left with what you yourself stated, Ben. God chose whom He would save because He wanted to choose them. No external conditions or considerations.

Sorry, that's the "partiality God is not".

NOT partial, BUT receives their faith.

What they subsequently do is a result of His Predestination, not the cause of it, just as my sig says. In your efforts to deny predestination, you actually have proven it!

Uhmmmm, hmmmm.

Logically, the idea that God chooses people based on their foreseen actions, which He subsequently predestines, as scripture states, is the equivalent of assuming your conclusion in your premise, and also a self-fulfilling prophecy, both of which are logical fallacies.

I included "Universalism" in my text, because the same argument that overturns Calvinism (which claims "God chooses SOME"), also overturns Universalism (which claims "God chooses ALL"); because God chooses no one. But each man chooses God, by his faith.

This reasoning inevitably leads to a causal loop, where the action is its own cause, which is logically, as well as physically and temporally, impossible.

This is subjective; we're debating objectively, our source of truth, Scripture.

I know you think Scripture supports your view; but that's what we debate here. Which is which.

 

[moonbeam]

Actually that is the very definition of partiality: Choosing men BECAUSE they revere him and do right.

Calvinism teaches that God chooses men as you defined it earlier in your post: Because He wants to. He chooses individual men because He wanted to choose them.

You're not even remaining consistent with your own definitions!

If God chooses men based on whether or not they revere Him and do right, He is basically rewarding good behavior, and the ultimate reason of their being chosen resides within themselves, not within God. Logically, this should be a no-brainer.

Therefore, when you read the verse, "Those He foreknew, He predestined", you should not see that foreknowledge as "what they will do, or have done", or any other criteria which takes into account their foreseen actions, but rather He foreknew them as individuals on whom He set His Love, and determined that He would cause them to come to Him and be saved.

That does not mean "coerced them", or "violated their free wills as though they were robots" or any of the other ridiculous and false charges leveled against Calvinism by those who manifestly do not, and refuse to, educate themselves as to what Calvinism teaches. I would like to believe that all of us realize and agree that God must draw men to Himself in order for them to be saved. That is part of the work of Grace. We may disagree on exactly what that entails, but scripture is clear that God draws men to Himself.

God can so order the lives of those He has chosen in such a way that they will be brought to salvation, without "violating" their "free will", or being "coerced" into doing something they don't want to do. It is ridiculous to charge that Calvinism teaches such nonsense as "coercion", or saving them "against their will". Scripture proves this principle, "the mind of man orders his way, but the Lord directs his steps."

So, Ben, you need to decide which side of the argument you will land on, because up until now, you have straddled the fence.

God's foreknowledge with regard to predestination is of individuals, not actions, and their actions do not influence His choice, because if He predestines someone to salvation, their subsequent choices will be unto salvation. If He were to then look at those choices as a reason to save them, then it is a causal loop. He would be causing the very thing He then uses as the reason to make the choice.

Since the causal loop cancels itself out, you are left with what you yourself stated, Ben. God chose whom He would save because He wanted to choose them. No external conditions or considerations. What they subsequently do is a result of His Predestination, not the cause of it, just as my sig says. In your efforts to deny predestination, you actually have proven it!

Logically, the idea that God chooses people based on their foreseen actions, which He subsequently predestines, as scripture states, is the equivalent of assuming your conclusion in your premise, and also a self-fulfilling prophecy, both of which are logical fallacies. This reasoning inevitably leads to a causal loop, where the action is its own cause, which is logically, as well as physically and temporally, impossible.

Amen brother...

 

[cygnusx1]

Amen brother...

and as for me and my house

 

[nobdysfool]

Can't be --- it's very cleary worded:

NOT partial, BUT welcomes who does right and reveres God". The word "but", means "partial, is the OPPOSITE of God welcoming reverers/do-rights.

Not in any English course I ever took in school....

Yes, it does. And that makes the Final Judgement, pageantry.

Only because you refuse to understand what The Bible teaches, Ben. This is an oft-repeated but unprovable charge. You insist that God must conform to your idea of how things are. You've got it backwards.

yes-I-yam....

Ok, Popeye....

God "rewards good behavior"? No --- God "rewards those who SEEK Him".

Wouldn't that be classified as good behavior? It certainly isn't bad behavior, is it? And who seeks God but those whom He has caused to come near to Him?

What does Heb11:6 say in your copy?

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Why, what does it say in yours? I fail to see how this "overturns" Calvinist Theology. This is a truism.

"Foreknew", means "those who loved Him".

LOL! You need a new dictionary, Ben. "Foreknew" means "knew before", literally. In the passage and use in the context, it means that God foreknew individuals, not actions. It says "Whom He foreknew". "Whom" refers to people, not actions.

You won't succeed trying to cast it as "God CAUSED them to seek/believe" --- clearly, He receives faith, and rewards seekers.

That does not preclude Him being the cause of their seeking, and faith. This is the huge flaw in your doctrine. You ascribe an independence and ability to unregenerate men that they flat out do not possess in any way that will naturally please God.

The word "robot", simply is an attempt to convey the doctrine of "they had no choice; either in faith (sovereign election), or rebellion (sovereign non-election)".

And it is a false and insulting portrayal of a doctrine you don't like. It comes from a refusal to listen, or to learn what is being taught, as well as what is NOT being taught. You're filtering it through a different set of definitions and assumptions, and therefore not really comprehending what is being said.

Show me where any man (who remains unsaved), is not drawn the same as those who believe.

Were the Native Americans of 33 BC drawn the same as Israelites? The Aztecs? the Mayans?, the South Pacific Islanders? Are all men drawn equally? The answer is "No" they are not. This is another spot where your theology falls apart when examined, because you make certain assumptions which either cannot be proven, or fall apart when examined, because they are based on falsehoods.

The prable of Matt22:2-14 is very clear; all were called, and those who CAME (and put on righteousness), were saved.

In the parable, yes. However, parables do not deal with the totality of the doctrine, only some aspects. You cannot build theology around parables as the basis. Parables are useful for illustration, but they don't make good doctrine, by themselves. I've proven that many times.

"For MANY are called, but FEW are chosen". Jesus said "I draw all men". God commands "all men to repent". God "desires all men to be saved". Too many verses oppose "limited atonement".

Ben, the Atonement is limited, whether by God's design or by mans' failure to respond 100%. either way, it is not universally applied. Is that not so? So, trying to "overturn" limited atonement is a futile effort, because reality shows the atonement to be limited, in actual fact. We just disagree on why.

Which comes first --- "God-directing-their-steps"? Or "faith"?

Well since that is not what the verse I quoted says, I think you're trying to divert. Besides, not every verse shows a sequence that is doctrinally important.

Did God direct the steps of the many despots in history (Hilter, Musselini, Stalin, Mao-tse-tung, etcetera)? No.

Well, the Bible says He set them in power. That would include directing their steps. And His direction of their steps is to accomplish that which He has determined. Their assent and/or knowledge of His direction is not necessary. "The heart of the king is in the Lord's Hands, and He turns it wherever He wants" Please don't make the mistake of denying the very teachings of the Bible, Ben. Scripture shows you to be wrong.

I have proven elsewhere that God ordains and directs the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purposes, by three witnesses in scripture, which is scripturally enough to prove any point of doctrine. There are actually four witnesses to that scriptural fact. You have not been able to "overturn" even one of them. They are clear and unambiguous. Your position has been overturned decisively on this point.

Have not. I've ben consistent...

You may have "ben" consistent, but you haven't "been" consistent, as I've pointed out....

And that's "free will"? It isn't.

Ah, so we come to the real heart of all this foolishness of you denying what the Word of God teaches...

Jesus said, "Those WHO act, are wise; those who do NOT act, are foolish." Matt7:24-27 Sorry, that's the "partiality God is not".

LOL! Ben, you're so flustered, you've lost your train of thought. You are arguing against the very Word of God.

I included "Universalism" in my text, because the same argument that overturns Calvinism (which claims "God chooses SOME"), also overturns Universalism (which claims "God chooses ALL"); because God chooses no one. But each man chooses God, by his faith. This is subjective; we're debating objectively, our source of truth, Scripture.

Now you're trying to do away with the inconvenient (for you) doctrine of election. You've already tried (and failed miserably) to "overturn" Predestination, and I have shown how you have actually proven Predestination. Now you deny election which is also clearly taught in scripture, but you want us to believe that God chooses no one, when scripture is clear that He DOES chose individuals, and He DOES choose them as the Elect, and predestines them to salvation, to be accomplished during their lives at the time of His choosing to bring them to himself.

I know you think Scripture supports your view; but that's what we debate here. Which is which.

Well, scripture DOES support my view, and DOES NOT support yours. I can't state it any simpler than that, other than just say, Ben, you're wrong. I KNOW scripture supports my view. It's not just assumption, it's a FACT.

 

[Ben johnson]

If so, then Jesus is not the savior of the world. He provided potential for salvation- not salvation itself.

He provided conditional salvation. "God is the Savior of the WORLD, above-all believers." 1Tim4:10

 

[nobdysfool]

Uh-huh....God, provided a great salvation, which can be obtained no other way, or through any other, and left it up to man to meet the condition to obtain it, all by himself.....yeah, right.....


Wanna buy a bridge? I got one you can have for a song.....

 

[cygnusx1]

Uh-huh....God, provided a great salvation, which can be obtained no other way, or through any other, and left it up to man to meet the condition to obtain it, all by himself.....yeah, right.....


Wanna buy a bridge? I got one you can have for a song.....

lol !!

you already had London bridge off us , we kept tower bridge , they ain't the same


"most notably by an American Millionnaire, who transplanted the old London Bridge to Arizona, only finding out on delivery he hadn't bought Tower Bridge"

 

[holdon]

I have proven elsewhere that God ordains and directs the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purposes, by three witnesses in scripture, which is scripturally enough to prove any point of doctrine.

And the "blame God for everything" refrain goes on and on and on.

Please fellow Calvinist puppets, don't be upset at the non-calvinist puppets, it is God who pulls all the strings.....

 

[cygnusx1]

CJ Mahaney - Testimony great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLZV9aajAYE

 

[Rick Otto]

There was no mistake --- God planned to save no person. Rather, He planned that all COULD be saved, if they BELIEVED.

Do you see how that presumes He isn't omniscient?
How it presumes He didn't KNOW who would & who wouldn't believe?

 

[nobdysfool]

And the "blame God for everything" refrain goes on and on and on.

Please fellow Calvinist puppets, don't be upset at the non-calvinist puppets, it is God who pulls all the strings.....

Try reading what I wrote concerning this issue and see how scripture proves what I have said. This isn't "blame God for everything". This is seeing how all things are under His control and work toward His Purpose, even the sinful acts of men who oppose God. We're talking about His sovereignty here.

 

[moonbeam]

Do you see how that presumes He isn't omniscient?
How it presumes He didn't KNOW who would & who wouldn't believe?

Well spotted.....you have a keen eye young sparrow hawk.

 

[holdon]

Try reading what I wrote concerning this issue and see how scripture proves what I have said. This isn't "blame God for everything". This is seeing how all things are under His control and work toward His Purpose, even the sinful acts of men who oppose God. We're talking about His sovereignty here.

You equate His sovereignty with mere puppeteerism.

To the Calvinist in general God's sovereignty must mean that He directs the sinful acts of men and men can't do a thing about it. So, its puppeteerism...

 

[nobdysfool]

You equate His sovereignty with mere puppeteerism.

To the Calvinist in general God's sovereignty must mean that He directs the sinful acts of men and men can't do a thing about it. So, its puppeteerism...

Sorry, that won't fly. I have proven conclusively from scripture that God does direct and control the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purpose. He does so without resorting to "puppeteerism" as you falsely charge. He utilizes direct as well as secondary means to bring about that which He has Purposed. Your failure to recognize or understand that fact does not negate it, or dismiss it. Scripture is clear. I see a God Who is in complete control of all of His creation. You apparently don't believe that He has that power.

 

[holdon]

Sorry, that won't fly. I have proven conclusively from scripture that God does direct and control the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purpose. He does so without resorting to "puppeteerism" as you falsely charge. He utilizes direct as well as secondary means to bring about that which He has Purposed. Your failure to recognize or understand that fact does not negate it, or dismiss it. Scripture is clear. I see a God Who is in complete control of all of His creation. You apparently don't believe that He has that power.

Sorry, but laughing at your: "I" and "proven conclusively".

Now, let's say God does direct the sinful acts of men, how could He do that without puppeteerism?

 

[nobdysfool]

Sorry, but laughing at your: "I" and "proven conclusively".

Now, let's say God does direct the sinful acts of men, how could He do that without puppeteerism?

Go read Genesis 50, 1 Kings 22, and Exodux 4:21. God did not "puppeteer" anyone. He used the sins of Joseph's brothers to save the entire family, and to teach Joseph and prepare him for his role. He sent a deceiving spirit into Ahab's prophets to cause Ahab to go and die in battle. Ahab even was aware of it, and tried to disguise himself to avoid God's decree, but was killed by a "random" arrow. God told Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart so that he would not release the children of Israel, so that God could show His power and authority before the children of Israel and Egypt.

In each case, God utilized the acts of wicked men to bring about that which he had Purposed to happen. Every fact in scripture is established by two or three witnesses. I have cited three, and there is a fourth, in Acts, where Peter says that " this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Acts 2:23

So, yes, I have conclusively proven this to be true. By four clear witnesses. It is a scriptural lock.

 

[holdon]

Go read Genesis 50, 1 Kings 22, and Exodux 4:21. God did not "puppeteer" anyone. He used the sins of Joseph's brothers to save the entire family, and to teach Joseph and prepare him for his role. he sent a deceiving spirit into Ahab's prophets to cause Ahab to go and die in battle. Ahab even was aware of it, and tried to disguise himself to avoid God's decree, but was killed by a "random" arrow. God told Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart so that he would not release the children of Israel, so that God could show His power and authority before the children of Israel and Egypt.

In each case, god utilized the acts lof wicxked men to bring about that which he had Purposed to happen. Every fact in scripture is establsihed by two or three witnesses. I have cited three, and there is a fourth, in Acts, where Peter says that " this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Acts 2:23

So, yes, I have conclusively proven this to be true. By four clear witnesses. It is a scriptural lock.

Ah, but that's not so "conclusively" to me. God "using sins" as you now put it is something quite different from God "directing their sins".
Put otherwise: are those psychotic killers right when they say: "God made me do it"? Or is this calvinistic determinism psychotic?

 

[nobdysfool]

Ah, but that's not so "conclusively" to me. God "using sins" as you now put it is something quite different from God "directing their sins".
Put otherwise: are those psychotic killers right when they say: "God made me do it"? Or is this calvinistic determinism psychotic?

Now you're just being ridiculous and stubborn. Please set aside your bias for a bit, and let the Word of God enlighten you. The proof is there, and four scriptural witnesses establish it beyond any doubt. You just apparently don't like the fact that a Calvinist proved it.