ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Nathon Detroit]

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.​

If you read through the story, it's clear the the hardening of his heart was a result of the miracles which God performed. God knew Pharoah's heart and knew that in spite of the fact that he was capable of repenting that he would not do so. Especially if someone publically started showing off that he (Pharaoh) wasn't really the god he claimed to be. God knows us better than we know ourselves, His prediction of Pharaoh's rebelion against God would not have been a difficult prediction to make for anyone, much less God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:up:

And one more thing....

Notice how even the magicians helped harden Pharaohs heart.... :think:

Exodus 7:22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

Based on those verses, I am surprised that some folks don't think that the magicians had the divine power to harden Pharaohs heart supernaturally.

 

[Clete]

:up:

And one more thing....

Notice how even the magicians helped harden Pharaohs heart.... :think:

Exodus 7:22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

Based on those verses, I am surprised that some folks don't think that the magicians had the divine power to harden Pharaohs heart supernaturally.

Brilliant point! :up:

 

[godrulz]

Is God then immoral in those limited circumstances where in the Bible he obviously violates "free will"? The most obvious example of course being his decision to harden Pharoh's heart in regards to freeing the Isrealites.

Read the whole historical narrative. Pharaoh hardened his own heart according to other verses. God judiciously further hardened his already hard heart in judgment. God does not tamper with free will in relation to individual salvation (TULIP is not biblical). This is a non-salvation issue and God was just in His dealings with Pharaoh. The root of his problem was his own rebellion. God did not cause him to rebel initially, but influenced him after the fact to persist in his path so God would be glorified as God of Israel. Likewise, Judas was not predestined or coerced/caused to be the betrayer. He started out in Jesus' inner circle and became a devil, a son of perdition, through his own heart sin over time. God used him after this inclination as part of his plan, but He could have accomplished His redemptive purposes even if Judas would have repented or continued as a good disciple.

 

[godrulz]

So, basically you believe that the Bible provides evidence in the fact that God only sovereignly intervenes in our lives sometimes, and not all of the time, correct? You stated, and I quote:

"He has given others significant freedom and say so."

But not to everyone? As you have stated earlier, He does intervene in some peoples lives. But again, it begs the question, why doesn't God just stay out of everyone's lives? Why interfere with some and not all? Why do you argue that God takes control sometimes, when necessary, but not all of the time? Other than saying the bible says so, you haven't presented any evidence to show that God does not intervene all of the time, rather than sometimes.

God influences, draws, persuades, woos in relation to individual salvation. Grace/love is not coercive/causative. His influence can be resisted (Lk. 7:30). He superintended the process of forming Scripture without using the writer's as mere automatic writers (their personality and experiences come through, though it is inspired as to what is recorded by the Spirit). He exercised more influence in the naming of OT Cyrus (OT prophecy) and the naming of John the Baptist and Jesus.

Unless you adopt the concept that God does not exhaustively control free will contingencies, you must end up blaming God for heinous evil, what you will put in your mouth today, what will come out of your yap, how or if you will pick your nose or expel gas, etc. It is self-evident and biblical that God does not control everything all the time. If He did, then all would be saved, and the horrific evil and suffering in the world would not be happening. Satan and man can do things contrary to God's intentions, desires, and will. This is why Jesus opposed sin, sickness, and Satan (the thief) and came to destroy the works of the enemy and the Fall. He does not affirm a decretal system. This is a wrong, deductive assumption that is not defensible biblically.

 

[godrulz]

Knight,

Your argument from the very first post in this thread has been that God does not give people diseases. I have proved you wrong on several occasions with evidence from the Bible that states God in fact does give people diseases. You, in rebuttal, have shifted your argument to mean that God only gives diseases to people as punishment. However, you have failed to recognize Job's faults, or David's firstborn son's faults, or the blind man's faults from John 9. These people were not disobediant to God, and they received diseases from Him.

However, all of that is beside the main point of this entire thread from the very first post. You said God did not give people diseases, but you've been proven wrong via Scriptures. Your continued argument is invalid on this point, unless you are willing to claim that the Scriptures are false.

I would not presume your subjective interpretations of the Bible are always identical with sound, objective exegesis. You bring assumptions and tend to proof text to support a deterministic theology. Boyd and others have simply and cogently responded to most of your verses. There is an alternate way of looking at the verses that does not impugn God for evil or lead to contradictions of other verses about His righteous character and ways.

e.g. we have talked about the difference between moral evil and natural 'evil'/disasters that God uses in righteous judgment.

 

[Delmar]

None. But what evidence from the Bible do you have?

It is true that I have nothing to offer that you havn't allready claimed dosn't mean what it says.

 

[Clete]

I have, but in doing so I come radically differently conclusions about what is taking place. But then I suppose that's why so many different people, all well read biblically, come to hold such different doctrinal positions. It does make me wonder sometimes on an issue like this precisely what it is that people bring to the text that makes them hold one position rather than another.

Your observation is quite correct which is why hermeneutics are all important. It usually comes down to our belief about what sort of person God is. I strongly urge you to read the debate between Pastor Enyart and Sam Lamerson. It almost immediately gets to this very point. Here's a link to the debate...

Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X - Sam Lamerson vs. Bob Enyart

 

[Letsargue]

Your observation is quite correct which is why hermeneutics are all important. It usually comes down to our belief about what sort of person God is. I strongly urge you to read the debate between Pastor Enyart and Sam Lamerson. It almost immediately gets to this very point. Here's a link to the debate...

Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X - Sam Lamerson vs. Bob Enyart

---Some one ought to read the Scriptures, and take just what they SAY, not some one else. Anyone can say anything, but God says what is, or what is not. If God doesn’t say it, how can YOU. --- Add to, and take from the Word?? – Which of you has the MOST RIGHT TO DO THAT???
*
--------------Paul---
*

 

[Hilston]

Here is a link to a critique of the aforementioned Battle Royale:

A CRITIQUE OF A DEBATE BETWEEN A CALVINIST AND AN OPEN THEIST

 

[Clete]

That's certainly an interesting possibility. Now, as I understand it, the Open View didn't come about theologically until some time during the 20th Century. What do you think changed in terms of people's view of God that led to people to formulate and accept that view that had been missing in previous centuries?

Open Theism as we know it is relatively new (19th century at the latest not the 20th) but so is Calvinism, Arminianism, the Charasmatic movement, etc. (Incidentally I've been reading some material from my church that makes a pretty good case for the idea that the group within Christianity that has the longest continuous history is the Baptists. Unfortunately they old age doesn't make them right any more than open theism youth makes them wrong.)

And it isn't so much a complete change in the way God is viewed but more of a question of emphasis. If you'll read that debate or even the first half of it, you'll readily see what I mean. The core difference between Open Theism and most any other Christian theological system is that it interprets the Bible in such a way to preserve God qualitative attributes over and above His quantitative attributes. The Calvinist will usually insist that no such preference should exist but then they proceed to interpret the Bible with a strong bias in favor of His omni attributes (quantitative) over such attributes as God's justice/righteousness (qualititative). But when you understand that it is God righteousness which is the basis for His power ( a point Pastor Enyart establishes quite well in the debate), then the correct emphasis is obvious and the result is open theism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Correction! You are probably right about that 20th century date. I was thinking of dispensationalism when I gave the other date. Sorry about that, I sort of tend to link the two together.

For some detailed information on Open Theism go to the following site...

http://www.opentheism.info/

 

[Delmar]

That's certainly an interesting possibility. Now, as I understand it, the Open View didn't come about theologically until some time during the 20th Century. What do you think changed in terms of people's view of God that led to people to formulate and accept that view that had been missing in previous centuries?

It was not at all unheard of for the characters mentioned in the Bible to petition God. Why would they have done so if they didn't think it would make a difference? The Open View has been around longer than you think!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It was not at all unheard of for the characters mentioned in the Bible to petition God. Why would they have done so if they didn't think it would make a difference? The Open View has been around longer than you think!

I was gonna say something like that.

Correct theology (of any kind) has it's origin with men and God at creation in one way or another.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh Z Man...

Oh Z Man...

Will the third time be a charm? Or is this the fourth time? :think:

Z Man, Let's try again....

In the verses... Le 26:16, 2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18,De 7:15, De 28:61 which YOU brought up, is God punishing the people in these stories because they were obedient or disobedient towards God?

 

[Z Man]

Cat got your tongue?

Let's try again....

In the verses... Le 26:16, 2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18,De 7:15, De 28:61 which YOU brought up, is God punishing the people in these stories because they were obedient or disobedient towards God?

What does it matter? The real question is, did God give them a disease?

Answer that, and then we can move on to a different topic, as you seem so eager to do.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What does it matter?

It matter because nobody denies that God punishes the wicked with disease and death.

But to assume that God gives EVERY cancer patient cancer is twisted and sick.

Apparently you have zero mental capacity to understand that.

You are a sad and tragic example of bad theology draining every bit of reason from an otherwise intelligent person.

Furthermore... it also matters because the answer to my question sheds light on your basic assertion that man can ONLY OBEY God (do His will) and NOT DISOBEY God.

So let's try again (attempt number 4 or 5)

In the verses... Le 26:16, 2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18,De 7:15, De 28:61 which YOU brought up, is God punishing the people in these stories because they were obedient or disobedient towards God?

 

[Z Man]

- God didn't do a thing to Job!

Job 2:3-7, 10
Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause." So Satan answered the Lord and said, "tretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life."

So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept ADVERSITY?" In all this JOB DID NOT SIN with his lips.

- David WAS DISOBEDIENT towards God.

David never received a disease from God for his disobediance. Instead, God punished David by sending disease and plague to others who were innocent - those whom David loved:

2 Samuel 24:15
So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died.

2 Samuel 12:15, 18
And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became ill. Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died.

- and the blind man in John was healed! The Bible doesn't state that God made the man blind...

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, OR THE BLIND? Have not I, the Lord?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Job 2:3-7, 10
Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause." So Satan answered the Lord and said, "tretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life."

So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept ADVERSITY?" In all this JOB DID NOT SIN with his lips.

David never received a disease from God for his disobediance. Instead, God punished David by sending disease and plague to others who were innocent - those whom David loved:

2 Samuel 24:15
So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died.

2 Samuel 12:15, 18
And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became ill. Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died.

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, OR THE BLIND? Have not I, the Lord?

:rotfl: Thanks for affirming every single point I made to you. You are a trip! :rotfl:

So let's try again (attempt number 5 or 6)

In the verses... Le 26:16, 2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18,De 7:15, De 28:61 which YOU brought up, is God punishing the people in these stories because they were obedient or disobedient towards God?

 

[Z Man]

It matter because nobody denies that God punishes the wicked with disease and death.

But to assume that God gives EVERY cancer patient cancer is twisted and sick.

Why? Why is it OK to you if God gives some people cancer, but not everyone?

 

[Z Man]

Thanks for affirming every single point I made to you. You are a trip!

Collaborate. I thought the verses I posted proved the opposite.