Hi Patman,
patman said:
God didn't do it this way because the brothers already screwed that opportunity up.
Yet God could certainly have stopped them at any point in time. And what about Joseph's free will, why do the brothers and their free will get to trump Joseph's free will?
Had they not done that, God would have only needed to say "Go forth," just like he did with most of his prophets, and it would have been so.
So then he stops the brothers somehow, and then waits and says "Go forth," and there is no need to tolerate a sin in the process.
God doesn't make sin happen. Just because it happened, doesn't mean it was God's idea. Can you agree with this?
No, because if people can cross the will of God, by a power to decide that they have, then God is not omnipotent. The alternative is that God's will is never crossed.
There is a difference between bringing hardships on those who deserve it, and causing sin.
The point however is that these judgments involve sinful people doing sinful deeds.
So why is it you say that God is causing sin when he punishes?
Not every time, certainly. But here?
Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Now this was including the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, who sinned indeed in doing this.
Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.
Similarly here, this must reference another taking of the city. And then in Amos:
Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?
This includes
all disasters that befall any city, which would include disasters due to sinful actions by sinful human beings.
"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)
Now Satan is sinning all the time. Yet here a messenger of Satan is used by God to bring humility in the life of Paul, "given" must refer to God as the agent here.
And you need to answer my reply about God's intent: The grammar demonstrates that it was the very deeds that his brothers did that God meant, how do you have an intent for a deed you are uninvolved in? "I intend that Patman's next post be for encouragement for the Padres fans." No, that doesn't work, I cannot have a purposeful intent for something you do.
industry said:
In the Old Testament, It prophicied that The Messiah would Be Crucified on a Cross. So that would defeat the "open thiest" idea.
Yes, it's pretty straightforward to close Open Theism, it's surprising that many have subscribed to it, and do not apparently discern such cardinal difficulties,
especially when they point out instances where they say God was wrong about a prophecy (or more properly, estimate).
Indeed, as before, a false prophet is someone who says "X will surely happen," and it doesn't happen.
And it is lying to say "Truly, truly" as Jesus did with Peter, knowing you might be wrong.
And the verse that is quite unanswerable, from the OVT perspective:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
The Open View would say yes, he does actually do this.
Blessings,
Lee