ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Z Man

Where did I ever state that God does evil and that it is good solely because God did it???

or ordaining that Absolom commit adultry

This is one that Clete pointed out. Oh, well, call this a "nutshell" case.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Z Man



I seriously think that we are talking past one another. You gravely misunderstood both of those posts, obviously. No where did I state that God does evil.

Let me ask you a question Clete; list some things that God CANNOT do. Or better yet, list some 'evil actions' that He CANNOT 'predestine' us to do.

God cannot predestine any of mankind to rape and still be good.

 

[Hilston]

Long overdue response to Yorzhik's post 1215.

Yorzhik writes:
What would you prefer? That your child does what you want, but makes it clear they do so in protest –or- the child fails to do what you want but they tried hard to accomplish what you want, and they show a desire to do what you want?

I prefer the latter. But I can tolerate sin. God cannot. I understand the Open Theist God is not so intolerant, and that’s one of my primary complaints against the view.

Hilston wrote: If the "someone else" committed the sinful act willfully, then both parties would be culpable to a higher authority. This doesn't apply to God for two reasons: (1) There is no higher authority than God, and (2) having exhaustive foreknowledge, God could have and has decreed evil to accomplish good purposes, working all things together for those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose.

Yorzhik writes:
I guess this is where we disagree. God can still be culpable if He has an understanding of right and wrong. It doesn't matter if there is someone bigger than God, or not.

Obviously, you don’t know what culpable means.

Yorzhik writes:
All that is required is a standard to measure against. In the case of God, it is a peer-to-peer comparison.

That’s not rational. God doesn’t compare Himself to Himself to determine something about Himself.

Hilston wrote: That's not what the Bible says. Jesus explicitly stated that Pilate's power was given him by God. Scripture explicitly states that Judas' actions were prophesied in detail.

Yorzhik writes:
Judas was mentioned by name? or the actions of unnamed men that we identify after the fact as Judas and others involved in the Passion?

That’s like saying, since the Hebrew scriptures no where say “Jesus,� it could have referred to the actions of an unnamed man that we identify after the fact as Jesus, but it could have been anyone.

Yorzhik writes:
Is Pilate any different from any other gov't official?

What do the scriptures say? It gives plenty of specifics about how Pilate was different from others.

Yorzhik writes:
Sure, this would be true if OJ was a mono-une god. But since that isn't the case with the real God, no, I don't see the impossibility you claim. If a transcendent God had nothing to testify to justice, then God might not detect if God was doing evil. But there is a mechanism to testify to the justice of the God of the bible. Or don't you think that Jesus is capable of understanding that His Father is good to Him? How about the Spirit; does the Spirit know if the Father is good?

It’s not a question God has to ask Himself. He is inherently good. He answers to no one. That’s like asking if God ever wonders if He is beautiful. This is where Open Theism leads. Asking finite questions about the infinite God, insolent denigration of His transcendence, humanizing His supra-human attributes, and bringing God down to set Him before the judgment of men.

Hilston wrote: The Godhead is One. Have you forgotten that? The three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united in essence and purpose. What you describe is tantamount to polytheism, not to mention the inherent problem you pose by imposing a higher standard of goodness than God Himself by which the "Gods" evaluate each other.

Son: "Hey, Father, I think the Spirit is good."
Father: "Really? What makes You say that?"
Son: "Well, He does good things."
Father: "Such as?"
Son: "He often __(insert good thing here)__, and that's good, right?"
Father: "Good? By what standard of goodness?"
Son: "By the Godly standard of goodness that is Us, the Godhead."
Father: "So, You're saying the Spirit, Who is God, is good because He conforms to the Godly standard of goodness that We All established. How do We All know that our Godly standard of goodness is good?"

Yorzhik writes:
Son: "Hey, Father, I think the Spirit is good."
Father: "Really? What makes You say that?"
Son: "Well, He does good things."
Father: "Such as?"
Son: "He often __(insert good thing here)__, and that's good, right?"
Father: "Good? By what standard of goodness?"
Son: "By the Godly standard of goodness that is within Me, part of the Godhead."
Father: "So, You're saying the Spirit, Who is God, is good because He conforms to the Godly standard of goodness that We All established and is defined, and that we can each evaluate against the actions of each part of the Godhead."

The mock-dialogue was intended to show how ridiculous the claim is, yet you treated it with seriousness and actually tried to improve my characterization of it! It’s no better, Yorzhik. It is still utter nonsense.

Hilston wrote: If you're going to claim that God Himself is the standard, then you beg the very question.

Yorzhik writes:
So, you have a complete understanding of the trinity?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Hilston wrote: It's question begging, Yorzhik. If God's concept of justice is used to ascertain whether of not a Person of the Godhead is just, then it's a tautology. See the dialogue above. It's a tight question-begging fallacy.

Yorzhik writes:
Not at all. The Godly standard is in each part of the Godhead. You cannot separate the conversation and not separate understanding as well.

Can the Spirit ascertain whether or not He Himself is good by looking at His own goodness?

Hilston wrote: Not true, Yorzhik. Jesus was declaring the inherent and supreme authority of the Godhead, not authority that is testified and justified before men. The point is that there is no higher testimony than the Godhead, in toto. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever. Jesus certainly was not trying to justify the Persons of the Godhead.

Yorzhik writes:
If you cannot establish the bolded sentence, then you cannot establish your statement. Can you give me a complete rundown on exactly how we do separate the Godhead?

It can’t be done. You might was well say the Son knows He is good because He looked at His own goodness as the standard and decided, “Yup, I must be good because my behavior lines up with my own goodness.�

Yorzhik wrote previously: No Hilston, there is righteousness and there is wickedness. There are not different standards of righteousness. There are no different prescriptions for righteousness.

Hilston asked: Is it righteous to abstain from strangled meat or not?

Yorzhik writes:
The prescription for righteousness is to follow God's rules, whatever they happen to be at the time. Rules change, righteousness doesn't.

Righteousness is ascertained by a standard, Yorzhik! The rules, Yorzhik! :kookoo:

So I ask again: Does the current standard of righteousness prescribe abstinence from meat-strangled or not?

Someone quoted: “The Judge of all the earth does right by man, which is to say that He preserves the righteous and He slays the wicked.�

Yorzhik writes:
How does God know that preserving the righteous men and slaying the wicked men is right?

Do you hear yourself? God created men. God made the rules. That’s like asking if murder was wrong before the universe was created. Men didn’t exist. Murder didn’t exist. It’s non sequitur, Yorzhik.

Yorzhik previously wrote: I read it in the Bible, too. And God told me the opposite [of this]:

Hilston previously wrote: "Well if it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist, and if I happen to sin, how could He blame me for sinning (Why doth He yet find fault)? After all, He is God, and who hath resisted his will?"

Yorzhik writes:
The God of the bible says the opposite of: " … it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist …"

Then why did Paul ask the question as if God did say that?

Hilston wrote: On your view, prophesies are not that important (i.e. their fulfillment). They can be thwarted.

Yorzhik writes:
The only time a prophesy of something bad happening is thwarted is if the action of that bad thing is no longer required.

This is new to me. Isn’t there a whole list pf prophecies that Open Theists claim to have been thwarted? Is every one of them of this nature (i.e., a bad thing that is no longer required)?

Hilston wrote: So the move itself did indeed enter into His mind (like sacrificing one's children to Molech), but the fact of His opponent actually choosing the worst move never entered His mind. So it's a figure of speech after all?!

Yorzhik writes:
Yes. In more common English, the figure is stated "I can't believe you did that."

I agree completely! Your OV friends disagree with you.

Yorzhik writes:
And here is the plain text to replace it: Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], I really really did not expect we would have gone down this path of ever having gotten this bad, been this depraved, or ignored so completely the obvious goodness of not killing your own children:

I wouldn’t take it that far. God not only expected it, He decreed it. But His words to Israel were intended to shame them.

Hilston wrote a bunch of stuff [regarding “solving the game of chess�]: What does that mean? If I have more total matches then my opponent, I will win. Game solved? ... Try me. I'm Asian. I done good on my SAT. You know, Mensa material. ... I'm willing to go to all that trouble. I'd rather not take your word for it. … I've studied the moves between Deep Blue and Kasparov. I had to make a graphic of their moves the last time they played. I also read, with fascination, about Kasparov's frustration and resignation after only 19 moves in the final game of their 1997 match. But hindsight is 20-20, Yorzhik. We're talking about a future that doesn't exist (according to Open Theists) and God does not know it. Not only that, but there are parts of the past (i.e. past "chess moves") that God doesn't know either. So He doesn't even have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight in some cases. That's why (according to Open Theists) He would send angels and the Theophany to investigate whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21).

Yorzhik writes:
Oy! You been sandbagging! As someone with a Chinese last name, and whose children are half-asian, I realize you know more about this than I do!

I’m not a fan of chess, Yorzhik. It annoys me. I’m more interested in the human drama than the game itself. “Solving the game of chess� still doesn’t make sense to me, or to the chess aficionado I asked.

Yorzhik writes:
None of the links have a single definition to 'solve the game of chess', but together, and because some actually aren't too far off to begin with, this should be enough. ... [snipped link info] ... But this doesn't help the people that don't want to go to all the trouble of following all those links to compile the information. Since this is not really a concept too hard to understand, we can talk through it. Honestly, I can't take your word for it that you would try to understand the information in the links.

You don’t have to take my word for it. You will be able to test me. I haven’t read the links yet, but I will.

Yorzhik wrote: So let's begin. Here is a complete game of chess: 1. e2-e4, e7-e5. 2. Ng1-f3, Nb8-c6. 3. Bf1-c4, Ng8-f6. 4. Nf3-g5, d7-d5. 5. e4xd5, Nf6xd5. 6. Ng5xf7, Ke8xf7. 7. Qd1-f3, Kf7-e6. 8. Nb1-c3, Nc6-d4. 9. Bc4xd5, Ke6-d6. 10. Qf3-f7, Kd6-c5. 11. Nc3-a4, Kc5-b5. 12. Na4-c3, Kb5-a5. 13. b2-b4, Ka5xb4. 14. Ra1-b1, Kb4-c5. 15. Bc1-a3 mate… …Can you see that this is a particular line of moves?

Hilston responds: Sure.

Yorzhik writes:
Okay. Great. So then, could you also see that we could list a "line" for every game of chess that that has ever been played? And that those lines are fixed for each of those games?

Yes. Please continue. I’m eager to see the relevance of this to the concept of God as the Master Chess Player who had to send angels to investigate whether or not "[Sodom and Gomorrah] have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Originally posted by Z Man

Where did I ever state that God does evil and that it is good solely because God did it???

or ordaining that Absolom commit adultry

This is one that Clete pointed out. Oh, well, call this a "nutshell" case.

Ummm.. You do know that God DID ordain Absolom to commit adultry don't you? Are you saying that this is an evil act by God?

2 Samuel 12:11-12
"Thus says the Lord: 'Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.' "

God cannot predestine any of mankind to rape and still be good.

Is that it? Why can't God predestine someone to commit rape? He's predestined people to commit adultry, turn against His own people, murder His own Son, over turn the rule of kings that He appointed, to lie, etc. Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?

 

[OMEGA]

cancer???

cancer???

Can you imagine a women actual thinking

that God had given her cancer???

----------------------

Now you know why Men cannot understand " A WOMEN ":chuckle:

We are responsible for eating Cancer causing

Growth Hormone laden Beef, Pork and Chicken.

Daniel was a Vegetarian and so was Adam until

he listened to " A WOMEN ".:chuckle: :nono:

 

[Turbo]

So in OMEGA-land, the forbidden fruit was meat and meat grew on a tree? :freak:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man
Why can't God predestine someone to commit rape? He's predestined people to commit adultry, turn against His own people, murder His own Son, over turn the rule of kings that He appointed, to lie, etc. Who are you to tell God what He can and cannot do?

This is responded to here.

 

[Z Man]

Tell me Clete, did God do these things or not:

• - God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").
  
  - He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).
  
  - He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).
  
  - He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).
  
  - He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).
  
  - He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).
  
  - He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).
  
  - He embraces little children, yet struck down the firstborn in Egypt and of David (Matthew 19:13-14; Exodus 12:29; 2 Samuel 12:14-18).

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Z Man

Tell me Clete, did God do these things or not:

• - God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").
  
  - He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).
  
  - He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).
  
  - He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).
  
  - He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).
  
  - He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).
  
  - He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).
  
  - He embraces little children, yet struck down the firstborn in Egypt and of David (Matthew 19:13-14; Exodus 12:29; 2 Samuel 12:14-18).

You do admit that *if* this were a human that a person who advocated this behavior, or saw nothing wrong with it, would be considered at the very least a severe hypocrite?

Can you concede that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Z Man

Tell me Clete, did God do these things or not:

LOL... not in the way you think He did Z Man.

 

[natewood3]

You do admit that *if* this were a human that a person who advocated this behavior, or saw nothing wrong with it, would be considered at the very least a severe hypocrite?

Has everybody forgotten that God is not like humans? We are created in HIS image; He is not created in ours! The only way He is like us is in the way He created us to be like Him. God is infinite and holy, so what makes us think that just because He can do something that does not make sense or seems "wrong" in our minds, is necessarily wrong for God to do? Is it this the attitude we should have:

Dan 4:34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.
Dan 4:37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.


If God did something, and the Bible clearly says He did, then we should know He did it in such a way that it was just for Him to do. We are not the judges of what God does. Who do we think we are to condemn God or to judge what God has done? If you notice v. 37 above, it is PRIDE to not think of God the way Neb did...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Knight

LOL... not in the way you think He did Z Man.

Exactly!

Z Man,

This is the severe danger that proof texting presents. You take single sentences, rip them completely from their context, ignore the use of idiomatic expression, grammar and the like, and then pour whatever meaning you like into the passages that you quote.
The bottom line is that God does not do evil, and since commanding evil is evil then God does not command evil either! Any passage, any passage at all that you wish to quote that seems to be saying otherwise is being misunderstood or misrepresented. You are reading your Calvinist mindset into the text. You assume that God directly controls everything that happens and therefore the notion that God does evil is of no consequences to your theology. You don't even need these proof texts in the first place. Calvinism teaches that every single action, thought and event that takes place does so because of the absolute sovereign command of God. So why waste your time worrying about whether or not God ordained adultery? Why not go for the big enchilada and blame God for every evil action that has ever taken place! I mean, if you’re going to blame Him for one sin, why not all of them, right? Isn't is the same sovereignty that ordained Pharaoh’s sin that also ordained the last time you told a lie?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Has everybody forgotten that God is not like humans? We are created in HIS image; He is not created in ours! The only way He is like us is in the way He created us to be like Him. God is infinite and holy, so what makes us think that just because He can do something that does not make sense or seems "wrong" in our minds, is necessarily wrong for God to do? Is it this the attitude we should have:

Dan 4:34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.
Dan 4:37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.


If God did something, and the Bible clearly says He did, then we should know He did it in such a way that it was just for Him to do. We are not the judges of what God does. Who do we think we are to condemn God or to judge what God has done? If you notice v. 37 above, it is PRIDE to not think of God the way Neb did...

This pretty much completely misses or ignores the point and it certainly does not answer the question which you wrote this in response to!

We are not discussing the nature of God, we are dicussing the nature of good and evel, right and wrong.

So let's try again, Hypothetically speaking if God caused, by whatever means, someone to rape and murder an eleven year old child, would that be wrong, yes or no?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Isn't is the same sovereignty that ordained Pharaoh’s sin that also ordained the last time you told a lie?

I remember when I would do something wrong I used to think, in the back of my mind, "Well, that was a bad thing to do but apparently God wanted me to do it or I wouldn't have done it". To be honest, at times it helped to ease the guilt that I would have over my wrong doing.

I wouldn't dare admit this. And I know that other Calvinists had this same kind of thinking. I'm now ashamed for having thought that God ordained me to sin but relieved that I now know that this is clearly unbiblical.

 

[natewood3]

Clete,

This pretty much completely misses or ignores the point and it certainly does not answer the question which you wrote this in response to!

We are not discussing the nature of God, we are dicussing the nature of good and evel, right and wrong.

So let's try again, Hypothetically speaking if God caused, by whatever means, someone to rape and murder an eleven year old child, would that be wrong, yes or no?

What I responded to was this: "You do admit that *if* this were a human that a person who advocated this behavior, or saw nothing wrong with it, would be considered at the very least a severe hypocrite?"

What I seen implied in that was that if God was a human, then we would have to consider this wrong and evil. What I also seen implied is that God is supposed to act as we act; if we do something that is wrong, then it must also be wrong for God. If we love ourselves and exalt ourselves and tell others to praise us, it IS evil, prideful, and sin. However, God does this all the time! Does that make it sinful, and prideful, and evil? Absolutely not. In that statement I see that God should also be condemned and considered wrong for ordaining that evil be, because it would be wrong for us. I am misunderstood, then correct me. However, THAT is what I was responding to, the idea behind the question that I seen to be implied in the question itself. I never said I was responding to the question itself.

In response to the question itself, God DOES ordain things to come about through secondary means or causes, in which case HE is not responsible. So not, if God ordains that sin be and it takes places through secondary causes, then it is not wrong for He is not the One to blame. It is not the cause that makes us responsible; it is the way that the action was caused. When we sin, we are acting in accordance with our desires and wants, which would make US responsible for our action, whether or not it is ordained by God or not.

BTW, you said:

The bottom line is that God does not do evil, and since commanding evil is evil then God does not command evil either! Any passage, any passage at all that you wish to quote that seems to be saying otherwise is being misunderstood or misrepresented. You are reading your Calvinist mindset into the text. You assume that God directly controls everything that happens and therefore the notion that God does evil is of no consequences to your theology. You don't even need these proof texts in the first place. Calvinism teaches that every single action, thought and event that takes place does so because of the absolute sovereign command of God. So why waste your time worrying about whether or not God ordained adultery? Why not go for the big enchilada and blame God for every evil action that has ever taken place! I mean, if you’re going to blame Him for one sin, why not all of them, right? Isn't is the same sovereignty that ordained Pharaoh’s sin that also ordained the last time you told a lie?

That is a straw man all the way...no Calvinist believes God DOES evil or is He to EVER to be blamed for evil. I know that Z Man would not agree with how you portrayed Calvinists either....

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,
What I responded to was this: "You do admit that *if* this were a human that a person who advocated this behavior, or saw nothing wrong with it, would be considered at the very least a severe hypocrite?"

What I seen implied in that was that if God was a human, then we would have to consider this wrong and evil.

God became a human remember? And Jesus, while in His glorified body, is still a man today for that matter!
If Jesus had committed (hypothetically speaking, of course) sodomy, would it have been wrong?

What I also seen implied is that God is supposed to act as we act; if we do something that is wrong, then it must also be wrong for God. If we love ourselves and exalt ourselves and tell others to praise us, it IS evil, prideful, and sin. However, God does this all the time! Does that make it sinful, and prideful, and evil? Absolutely not.

THIS IS ONLY TRUE BECAUSE PRAISE AND WORSHIP RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO GOD!!! For us to except worship would be robbery, we would be taking for ourselves that which rightfully belongs to God and God alone. This is why Philippians 2:6 is a meaningful verse of Scripture.

In that statement I see that God should also be condemned and considered wrong for ordaining that evil be, because it would be wrong for us. I am misunderstood, then correct me.

The only misunderstanding is that no one is advocating the condemnation of God. What is being said is that if God were guilty of what Calvinism teaches then He should be condemned. The point it that He is not guilty of the Calvinists blasphemous accusations and that the existence of such accusations is proof that Calvinism is not correct.

In response to the question itself, God DOES ordain things to come about through secondary means or causes, in which case HE is not responsible. So not, if God ordains that sin be and it takes places through secondary causes, then it is not wrong for He is not the One to blame. It is not the cause that makes us responsible; it is the way that the action was caused. When we sin, we are acting in accordance with our desires and wants, which would make US responsible for our action, whether or not it is ordained by God or not.

Double talk! Meaningless double talk!
God also ordained that which you call secondary causes, our desires and the inward motivations for our actions, etc He ordained it all. The fact is Calvinism destroys everything that makes life meaningful. We have no choice, we have no desire, we have no love, or hate, sin or righteousness that has not been ordained and predestined by God Himself an eternity before any of us we born. To deny this is to not be a Calvinist.

That is a straw man all the way...no Calvinist believes God DOES evil or is He to EVER to be blamed for evil. I know that Z Man would not agree with how you portrayed Calvinists either....

Call it what you like but saying it doesn't make it so. I was a Calvinist for 20 years before realizing my error so don't tell me what a Calvinist believes, I know better than most Calvinists. I realize that no Calvinist would characterize what they believe the same way I have but the logic that I have applied is inescapable. Like it or not, if Calvinism is true, God is directly responsible for evil or else the concepts of good and evil have no meaning, take your pick.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[natewood3]

Clete,

God became a human remember? And Jesus, while in His glorified body, is still a man today for that matter!If Jesus had committed (hypothetically speaking, of course) sodomy, would it have been wrong?

Is God the Father a human? Is the Holy Spirit a human? I agree that Christ experienced things as a human, just as we would. I don't think the Bible specifically says that Jesus is the One ordaining that things be. In fact, it says He Himself was foreordained before the foundation of the world. It would look as though the Author of the plan is God the Father, who is not a human. Christ was and is the Godman, but we must remember He was and is the GODman. He is different from us in that He is God and is capable of things that we are not.

If Jesus would have committed sodomy or any other sin, it would have been wrong. What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, not the nature of God...there is a huge difference between committing evil and ordaining evil...

THIS IS ONLY TRUE BECAUSE PRAISE AND WORSHIP RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO GOD!!! For us to except worship would be robbery, we would be taking for ourselves that which rightfully belongs to God and God alone. This is why Philippians 2:6 is a meaningful verse of Scripture.

This is also true because God is God and there is none like Him. God is not like us; He can do things that we cannot do nor should we do.

The only misunderstanding is that no one is advocating the condemnation of God. What is being said is that if God were guilty of what Calvinism teaches then He should be condemned. The point it that He is not guilty of the Calvinists blasphemous accusations and that the existence of such accusations is proof that Calvinism is not correct.

You are condemning my God, which I and other Calvinists see as the God of the Bible. How can God be "guilty" of ANYTHING????? Who is the judge that is going to pronounce judgment on the Almighty? No one is accusing God of sinning or of doing evil, except you.

Double talk! Meaningless double talk!
God also ordained that which you call secondary causes, our desires and the inward motivations for our actions, etc He ordained it all. The fact is Calvinism destroys everything that makes life meaningful. We have no choice, we have no desire, we have no love, or hate, sin or righteousness that has not been ordained and predestined by God Himself an eternity before any of us we born. To deny this is to not be a Calvinist.

He ordained that sin come about through the secondary causes; He Himself does not directly sin. I would agree that He ordains and governs our inward desires and motivations. The only problem with saying that God ordains and governs all things and that we make real choices and decisions is in YOUR mind and thinking. It is not a problem in the problem. God is said to govern and direct and ordain and predetermine things, while we are said to be responsible and accountable. To deny this is not to be a Bible believer.

Call it what you like but saying it doesn't make it so. I was a Calvinist for 20 years before realizing my error so don't tell me what a Calvinist believes, I know better than most Calvinists. I realize that no Calvinist would characterize what they believe the same way I have but the logic that I have applied is inescapable. Like it or not, if Calvinism is true, God is directly responsible for evil or else the concepts of good and evil have no meaning, take your pick.

And just because you are saying Calvinism is wrong does not make it so. Just because you have presuppositions and come to conclusions that are not Biblical only means that you have distorted what Calvinism really teaches. The logic is only "inescapable" because you think it is. You may know Calvinism better than me, or Z Man, or Hilston, but you claim to know it better than Edwards, Piper, Sproul, Packer, Pink, Murray, the Hodge's, Carson, Schreiner, Ware, etc, etc? None of them would ever think of teaching what you say is "inescapable." If it is "inescapable," then why would anyone be a Calvinist? You are creating an either-or situation and act as though there are no other solutions. That is ludicrous and not Biblical.

God ordains that sin be, while holding us responsible. As Hilston has said, God CANNOT be responsible, for responsibility implies accountability, and God is NOT accountable to us or anyone else. Therefore, God cannot be responsible for sin or evil in the sense that He Himself commits acts of sin or evil.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

LOL... not in the way you think He did Z Man.

You know, if I was the owner of this website, I would of told you to not waste our time by coming in here and posting a few words that do nothing to add to the debate. But, I'm not the owner, so oh well...


Practice what you preach Knight.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Exactly!

Are you and Knight going to expound on what you mean? How can those verses not mean what they say? It's pretty straightforward...

Z Man,

This is the severe danger that proof texting presents. You take single sentences, rip them completely from their context, ignore the use of idiomatic expression, grammar and the like, and then pour whatever meaning you like into the passages that you quote.

I simply summarized what the verses that I posted say. Read them for yourself and see if you can't come to the same conclusion. It's impossible NOT to.

The bottom line is that God does not do evil, and since commanding evil is evil then God does not command evil either! Any passage, any passage at all that you wish to quote that seems to be saying otherwise is being misunderstood or misrepresented.

I don't present passages of Scripture to prove that God commands evil Clete. I've told you that a million times already, but you're not listening. The passages I present are meant to show you that indeed God does whatever He pleases, and it's just and good.

You are reading your Calvinist mindset into the text. You assume that God directly controls everything that happens and therefore the notion that God does evil is of no consequences to your theology. You don't even need these proof texts in the first place. Calvinism teaches that every single action, thought and event that takes place does so because of the absolute sovereign command of God. So why waste your time worrying about whether or not God ordained adultery? Why not go for the big enchilada and blame God for every evil action that has ever taken place! I mean, if you’re going to blame Him for one sin, why not all of them, right? Isn't is the same sovereignty that ordained Pharaoh’s sin that also ordained the last time you told a lie?

Everything God does, He does to glorify Himself. If that includes murdering people, ordaining that people lie, or that they hate the very people He has sworn to protect, or to commit adultry, then so be it.

When the Pharisees and Pilate and Herod plotted to kill Jesus, their motivations for doing so were evil. However, God ordained these people to kill Him nonetheless. God's motivation was His glorification. The same goes for anything that God ordains. Joseph's brothers meant evil against their brother, but God meant it for good. When a sinner sins, their intent and motivation is of greed and hatred; but God directs the whole thing to see to it that He is glorified. A man's heart plans his ways, but the Lord directs his steps.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hilston wrote
I prefer the latter. But I can tolerate sin. God cannot. I understand the Open Theist God is not so intolerant, and that’s one of my primary complaints against the view.

If Jesus is covering the sins of the saved, and the unsaved go to hell… what sin is God tolerating?

But on to the subject. …"That your child does what you want, but makes it clear they do so in protest –or- the child fails to do what you want but they tried hard to accomplish what you want, and they show a desire to do what you want…"; you chose the latter as would I or any other parent. The point of the story was not that you can tolerate sin. The point is that what a child wants is more important than what a child does. Another way to say it is; a child's attitude is more important than their actions.

If you could control the "wants" of your child, your control would be complete. You would never have the right to be disappointed with their actions. Because control of the more important is control of the less important just as control of a computer program's main is control of all of that program's sub-routines. Then again, if you controlled the entirety of your child's "wants" then you would have a robot and not a child.

Hilston wrote
Obviously, you don’t know what culpable means.

Are you sure? I think I'm using it the way it is defined here:

cul•pa•ble adj. Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

Yorzhik wrote
All that is required is a standard to measure against. In the case of God, it is a peer-to-peer comparison.

Hilston wrote
That’s not rational. God doesn’t compare Himself to Himself to determine something about Himself.

It is rational because you are wrong that God is comparing Himself to Himself like a human would. This would just be Hilston making God into a big human, and nothing more.

Yorzhik wrote
Judas was mentioned by name? or the actions of unnamed men that we identify after the fact as Judas and others involved in the Passion?

Hilston wrote
That’s like saying, since the Hebrew scriptures no where say “Jesus,� it could have referred to the actions of an unnamed man that we identify after the fact as Jesus, but it could have been anyone.

No, it's not like saying Jesus could have been anybody. Jesus was a constant in the plan of salvation; the others were not (like Judas).

So was Judas mentioned by name? or could it have been anyone that did the same things that Judas did?

What do the scriptures say? It gives plenty of specifics about how Pilate was different from others.

Was Pilate's name one of the specifics?

Hilston wrote
It’s not a question God has to ask Himself.

No one is saying anything about God asking Himself.

It's like this:
Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes.
Is the Father God? Yes.
How many Gods are there? One.
Does that make sense? No.
When the Spirit talks with the Father, is it God talking with Himself? No.
Does that make sense? Yes.

Hilston wrote
The mock-dialogue was intended to show how ridiculous the claim is, yet you treated it with seriousness and actually tried to improve my characterization of it! It’s no better, Yorzhik. It is still utter nonsense.

And to you, "Let Us make man in Our own image" is nonsense, too.

Yorzhik wrote
So, you have a complete understanding of the trinity?

Hilston wrote
Is that a rhetorical question?

Yes, it's rhetorical. The point is, we have glimpses into the nature of the Trinity, and my understanding of the Trinity has more evidence that it's true than yours does.

Hilston wrote
Can the Spirit ascertain whether or not He Himself is good by looking at His own goodness?

No. That's the point.

Yorzhik wrote
If you cannot establish the bolded sentence, then you cannot establish your statement. Can you give me a complete rundown on exactly how we do separate the Godhead?

Hilston wrote
It can’t be done. You might was well say the Son knows He is good because He looked at His own goodness as the standard and decided, “Yup, I must be good because my behavior lines up with my own goodness.�

At least you admit you cannot establish your statement. But again, you are wrong about Jesus looking at Himself when I described the peer to peer relationship that Jesus has with the Father.

Hilston wrote
Righteousness is ascertained by a standard, Yorzhik! The rules, Yorzhik!

That's what I said. What something is, and how we ascertain it are two different things.

Hilston wrote
So I ask again: Does the current standard of righteousness prescribe abstinence from meat-strangled or not?

I answered your question. The standard, at any time, is to follow God, to try to be like Him in nature; to love God. This is similar to a relationship with one's spouse. The intimacy in a marriage relationship is not the relationship itself, but it is a way to help gage if the relationship is good or bad.

Hilston wrote
Do you hear yourself? God created men. God made the rules. That’s like asking if murder was wrong before the universe was created. Men didn’t exist. Murder didn’t exist. It’s non sequitur, Yorzhik.

Let me re-read to hear myself…

Okay, I can hear myself. You are wrong, murder was wrong before men were created.

Hilston wrote
Then why did Paul ask the question as if God did say that?

Reference?

Hilston wrote
This is new to me. Isn’t there a whole list pf prophecies that Open Theists claim to have been thwarted?

Yes.

Is every one of them of this nature (i.e., a bad thing that is no longer required)?

No.

Yorzhik wrote
Yes. In more common English, the figure is stated "I can't believe you did that."

Hilston wrote
I agree completely! Your OV friends disagree with you.

Yes and no. My OV friends would agree that mankind was always physically capable of starting a fire and throwing their kids in it. So in that way, it obviously entered God's mind. However, when God considered what man would actually do, this scenario didn't enter God's mind as a real possibility. But there is disagreement about how impossible God thought it was, or how God treated the knowledge. Then again, it isn't really important – among OV'ers, it is a tangent that could go either way and although we argue it, we realize it isn't that important.

Hilston wrote
I wouldn’t take it that far. God not only expected it, He decreed it. But His words to Israel were intended to shame them.

You wouldn't take it that far? Sheesh, what I wrote is patently wrong if God decreed what was done. Please re-write the passage replacing what you consider the figure(s) of speech with their actual meaning.

Hilston wrote
I’m not a fan of chess, Yorzhik. It annoys me. I’m more interested in the human drama than the game itself. “Solving the game of chess� still doesn’t make sense to me, or to the chess aficionado I asked.

Well then, let's keep discussing it.

Yorzhik wrote
Okay. Great. So then, could you also see that we could list a "line" for every game of chess that that has ever been played? And that those lines are fixed for each of those games?

Hilston wrote
Yes. Please continue.

Can you see that there are a finite number of games to be played in chess? Currently, from the links, IIRC, it is considered there are about 10^20 games of chess that can be played. The number isn't important, but can you agree that there is a finite number of "lines" (each a full game) in the game of chess and each one is unique and each one ends in either a white win/black loss or a white loss/black win or a draw?

Hilston wrote
I’m eager to see the relevance of this to the concept of God as the Master Chess Player who had to send angels to investigate whether or not "[Sodom and Gomorrah] have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21).

I guess we'll see.