I agree that motive was the issue. It is similar to the problem with touching the falling ark of the covenant to save it or Moses not doing exactly what God said in striking the rock. If God commands something and we partially obey (actually disobedience), then we are culpable, not God.
BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
God_Is_Truth
New member
I cannot believe that no one has mentioned 1 Chronicles 21 yet!
1 Chronicles 21
1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel
Satan was the one who incited David to take the census, not God himself! but why does 2 Samuel record it as saying God did it? because the Lord knew there was pride in David's heart. He therefore decided to use Satan to reveal it before others, so that he could heal David's heart. this goes along beautifully with what Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 4
5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
so we see that God had a good intention in using Satan to get David to sin! God is good!
why was the census a sin for David? because they were not at war, and the census was not done out of a need to size up one's army against the enemy. it was clearly done out of pride, so David could feel good about himself and what he had done. pride is sin, and God despises it.
In Him,
GIT
1 Chronicles 21
1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel
Satan was the one who incited David to take the census, not God himself! but why does 2 Samuel record it as saying God did it? because the Lord knew there was pride in David's heart. He therefore decided to use Satan to reveal it before others, so that he could heal David's heart. this goes along beautifully with what Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 4
5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
so we see that God had a good intention in using Satan to get David to sin! God is good!
why was the census a sin for David? because they were not at war, and the census was not done out of a need to size up one's army against the enemy. it was clearly done out of pride, so David could feel good about himself and what he had done. pride is sin, and God despises it.
In Him,
GIT
God_Is_Truth
New member
Rimi said:
i must've overlooked it. :doh:
:thumb:
maybe it refers to the phrases "proud to be an american" and "together we stand" ?
*Acts9_12Out*
Member
God_Is_Truth said:
GIT,
Excellent! 1 Chronicles 21 helps us understand 2 Samuel 24:1 perfectly.
This explains why "David's heart condemned him..." David chose to follow satan and not God.
David was foolish for following satan and not God.
Zman, why would David need to ask forgiveness for his sin, if indeed, God ordained it?
--Jeremy Finkenbinder
Z Man
New member
Rimi,Rimi said:
Now I understand your problem; you're a Marine.
Seriously, you have a big problem with having an intelligent debate with a fellow believer. I'd also appreciate it if you would not misquote me, or put words in my mouth by stating in your sig that I believe God needs raped babies to be glorified. I've never said such a thing. You've misunderstood my beliefs. It's fine if you don't agree, but your ignorance shows when you publicly quote me for something I've never said, all in the name of spreading bad propaganda towards my beliefs. So I'm asking you nicely to please get rid of that lie you wrote about me in your sig. It would also be nice, and I think the Christianly thing to do, to put an apology in your sig, so everyone will know that you are a gossiper and a liar, and that you are sorry. Maybe a little extreme, and I know that rebel inside of you is sayin, 'Yeah right, who does he think he is', but this isn't about you or me; it's about your sin. As a Christian, you should confess it before your breathren that you've sinned against a fellow believer, and against God, by lying and spreading gossip.
Thanks.
Z Man
New member
The same reason Job blamed God for the calamities brought against him by Satan. And in blaming God, the Bible says Job did not sin with his lips. In 2 Sam. 24, the Bible clearly tells us that the Lord moved David to take the census. He did this by allowing Satan to incite David to take the census. The secondary cause for David to take the census was Satan, but the primary was God.God_Is_Truth said:
I'm at a loss for words here. As a Calvinist, this is the SAME, EXACT way that I believe! This is the same exact idea that I've been promoting on this website for years, and the same idea that Open Theists have furiously been refuting.
Do you even realize that you've just stated God used Satan to do His perfect and good will? I couldn't agree more! 2 Samuel 24 teaches us, along with the rest of Scriptures, that God ordains everything, good or evil, for His ultimate and perfect will! God ordained that David take this census - which led to David sinning - for a greater good! This concept applies to everything. Why stop with David? The Bible also tells us that He caused the calamities in Job's life, by using Satan, to show us that God can be glorified in suffering as well as in our blessings. God ordained the death of His Son - which meant that many people sinned greatly in bringing false accusations against the Christ - to save mankind!
GIT, you've hit the heart of the Calvinist's belief, and you agree with it! And I don't think you or Acts 9 or Rimi realize it.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man said:
i would argue that the actual cause was Satan, not God. Satan always seeks to make us fall, it his desire to make us sin, because he hates God. now while God could have stopped Satan from doing this, he decided to manipulate it into something great. so he allowed Satan to tempt David, knowing that IF (calvinism denies the IF) he gave in, God could use it to get rid of the pride in David's heart. so we see that God's purpose in this was to purify David, not solely for his own glory.
we must remember, however, that after Satan tempted David, it was entirely possible that he could have said "no" to the census. it is entire accurate that the temptation itself was enough to point out his pride (as the soldier obviously noticed it) and that David could have (and should have) repented right then and there. thus, there was not a need for David to sin in order to bring out the pride, only the temptation was needed.
what open theist doesn't believe God can manipulate that which is evil into that which is good? that's Romans 8:28 in a nutshell.
whooa now, let's not jump to any conclusions
2 Samuel says that God used Satan this time to get rid of pride in David's heart. that's all we can say based on this passage. we can't conclude that God ordains everything, or that he always manipulates things this way, or that everything is God's will etc. those things may be true (though i don't believe they are), but we cannot conclude them based on this passage. you need much more to conclude such things.David's sinning in and of itself though was not good. his sinning led to his repentence and a realization of how much pride he had. his pride had to be brought forth before it could be healed. therefore, God used Satan to incite David so that his pride would ultimately be healed. God never desires sin in and of itself, but he can use that which is sinful in order to bring forth good fruits.
yes, God is quite good at manipulating evil into great things! but we still do not have enough to justify the doctrine that every single thing is ordained and further that it was ordained from before the foundation of the world, just for his glory.
certainly not all of what calvinists believe is false
, as we have seen here. for if there was no truth in calvinism whatsoever, it would not be held by many people at all.
Z Man
New member
But that conclusion ignores 2 Sam. 24:1, thus, must be rejected. Not only that, but we read in Job how Satan brought great tribulation and turmoil in Job's life, and yet, Job accredited it all to God. And the Bible says that he was not wrong for doing so.God_Is_Truth said:
So the conclusion must be that God is the primary cause behind everything God has Satan on a leash.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda; 'if only this', or 'if only that'.. All of this speculation is irrelevant in the light of the reality of God's Word. I do not believe that God gambles with His decisions, or that His will is in jeopardy.
I have provided tons of evidence to promote this idea in the whole span of my time here on this website. But I've only been ridiculed for it. Maybe after this great enlightenment, you guys will see my point.whooa now, let's not jump to any conclusions
No one is suggesting it was!
Amen! :thumb:
Are you sure you're an Open Theist?
I could provide the evidence. But, been there done that...
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man said:
no, it doesn't ignore Samuel. it's saying what Chronicles says which is the more specific account. Samuel recounts the bigger picture saying that God sent the temptation (indirectly, for God is not a tempter).
but we also know that it was Satan who directly took it away. Job did not however say that God had any obligation to give things to Job or stop others from taking them. that is why he said "the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away".
that is not a necessary conclusion. if this were the only text we had available, then your conclusion would certainly be plausible. but, much of the rest of the bible speaks of things happening apart from God's will, so the conclusion does not hold.
God's word does not exist in a vaccum does it? surely it's part of reality as God is? thus is is entirely relevent when our own reality tells us there are "if's and maybe's" in existence.
yes, i know you believe that. but this passage only provides you with minimal support for that.
*Acts9_12Out*
Member
ZMan,
Let's focus here. To buttress GIT's latest post, and to narrow our discussion, let's compare the two accounts.
God Bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder
Let's focus here. To buttress GIT's latest post, and to narrow our discussion, let's compare the two accounts.
Now, I know you prefer to follow the calvinistic translators and capitalize the "He" in verse 1. However, as you know, 1 Chronicles 21:1 clarifies who the "he" actually is.
I don't capitalize the "he" or "satan" in either passage. "he" doesn't deserve the respect. ZMan, Scripture is clear that satan is the adversary who prompted David to sin, not God. Again, I ask, why would David need to ask for forgiveness for a sin that you say God caused him to commit?
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
God Bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder
Z Man
New member
There are 2 things wrong with your assessment:God_Is_Truth said:
1) What makes you think Chronicles is the 'more specific account'?
2) 2 Samuel 24:1 does not say that God sent a 'temptation', but that God moved David to take the census. There was no temptation or choice on David's part; his choice was already made up - he wanted to take the census. And at the same time, he only acted on it because God moved him to do it. So, my question is, why do you think 2 Sam. 24:1 says that God sent David a temptation?
You didn't refute my position, you just stated it differently. The conclusion still stands that God was the primary cause of Job's troubles. We also see that in the action David took when he conducted the census.
Nothing happens apart from God's will.
Well, nothing happens apart from His will of decree. We see this in 2 Samuel 24. God moved David to take the census, then punished him for it. David obeyed God's will of decree (sovereign will), but disobeyed God's will of command (moral will).
And trust me, this is not the only example of this in Scripture. I wouldn't believe the way I do if it was.
If this passage alone provides support for my view, no matter how minimal, then it must be studied to see if other examples exist, do you agree? And even if they don't, this passage should be studied to see just what's going on here, rather than to be dismissed as just one case in which God may have acted a little strange...
Z Man
New member
Your error is in concluding that the 'he' in 2 Samuel 24:1 is referring to Satan, when in it's grammatical context, it most definitly is not. The 'he' in 2 Sam. 24 is, without a doubt, referring to God. Only a person with any disregard or ignorance of the English language would say that it refers to someone or something else other than the reference to God as is the context of the verse.*Acts9_12Out* said:
BTW, the NKJV capitalizes the 'He' in 2 Samuel 24:1. And the ones that do not, also do not capitilize the 'you', or 'your', or other references that are made to indicate an action done by God, or something He possesses.
So in light of proper English, I'd have to disagree with you that 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21 both mean Satan. That's an obvious and real conclusion. There can be no argument to it, unless you are willing to rewrite 2 Sam. 24 to read:
Again the anger of the [Satan] was aroused against Israel, and (He) moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
Then you ignore 2 Sam. 24:1. 1 Chron. 21 tells us that Satan was used by God to get David to take the census, but David would have never taken it had God not moved him to do it (through Satan).
God didn't cause David to sin. David sinned on his own. God moved David to take the census; God's intent and motivation, as GIT has posted earlier, may have been to heal David's pride, or it could've been for some other unforseen, invisible great good that we may not know about. But David's intentions and motivations in taking the census was wrong. So God punished him for it.
It does if you understand God's will of decree and will of command.
God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.
[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.
- Jonathan Edwards
[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.
- Jonathan Edwards
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man said:
because while Samuel tells us that God moved David, Chronicles says Satan did it. this means that Satan was the means (which is specific) and God the source. "He moved David" is a very general phrase and we do not know what it entails. the chronicles account tells us that it was in fact Satan who "stood up against Israel" which may mean something similar to what happened with Job. we know that Satan was therefore the one actually whispering in David's ear (perhaps not literally), tempting him to conduct the census and show how great he was. this is more specific than saying "He moved David". in other words, it's more specific because it's closer to the actual events in that Satan was directly involved, while God only indirectly.
nowhere in the text does it say that his mind was already made up. you have assumed that the term "moved" is determintive in nature when it is not necessarily so. if i pick up a rock and place it a foot away, i have moved it in the determining sense of the word. but if i raise my hand in court and say "i move for dismissal" this indicates my desire for action and is non-determinitive.
what reason do we have for believing that "moved" here is determinitve? considering that we ourselves have the freedom to make up our own minds today, i believe that David had the same capacity we do. i therefore think David was tempted (strongly) to take a census, but that he could have resisted the temptation. i argue that "moved" here is therefore non-determinitve in nature and to say that it is determinitve is an unfounded assumption.
we don't see that at all in 2 Samuel 24. we see God using Satan to tempt Job in order to get David to realize his pridefulness (which could be realized both by sinning or not sinning)
it was not God's command to take the cenus at all. he sent Satan who presented the option to David (in a very tempting manner i imagine). David's pride motivated him to give into the temptation and he therefore sinned.
but where do you start? which passages do you elevate above others? why do you interpret one set above another? as is being discussed in the battle royale thread, what hermeneutic do you use to determine your biblical standing?
yes it should be studied. but we can only make so many conclusions based on one text sample. the more fundamental issue is the hermeneutics we use however.
*Acts9_12Out*
Member
Z Man said:
ZMan,
I find it interesting that you build a case for your position from the English. Um, the OT was written in Hebrew, remember? At any rate, this still works with English too. Your straw man about, "a person with any disregard or ignorance of the English language would say that it refers to someone or something else other than the reference to God as is the context of the verse," is foolish.
For example, if I said, "ZMan posted in this thread, and He became discouraged because of the post." Now, how would one determine who the "He" is that is being referred to? You would agree that the context of that statement suggests either you, or someone else, became discouraged as a result of the post. Since there are many others involved in this discussion, there are a number of He's that I could refer to. Now, if we had another TOL Member write in another post, "Acts9_12Out was discouraged when he read ZMan's post," then we would definitely know who the He was, would we not? So you see, God clarifies that the he in 2 Sam 24:1 is not referring to Him, but rather, satan. How do we know this? 1 Chronicles 21...
Z Man said:
No, not exactly. God was angry with Israel (Big Surprise, huh?). satan moved David to take a census. David sinned by giving in to that temptation...
Z Man said:
No, satan prompted David to sin. David responded to that prompting and freely chose to sin. The problem with your argument Z is this... You say, "David sinned on his own.." This is inconsistent with your position. According to you, God, from before the foundation of the world, predestined and foreknew David to sin. No matter how you cut it Z, your position forces God to be culpable for David's sin.
Z Man said:
MOTS - Bob has done an excellent job of showing Pagan Influence upon calvinists, including you and J Edwards...
Why is it so hard to see that satan moved David to sin Z? It really is quite simple... Why do you think god goes through the trouble of clarifying in Chronicles?
God Bless,
--Jeremy
Z Man
New member
Both accounts (2 Sam. and 1 Chron.) tell us that both Satan and God moved David to take the census. How can you say that Satan's involvement is 'more specific'?God_Is_Truth said:
How can God be 'indirectly' involved when 2 Sam. 24:1 says otherwise?
You're analogy with the court does not hold up in light of God's determinitive will. God isn't asking anyone for permission to do what He what's done. When it says that He moved David to take the census, it's not saying that God was asking David to take it; He ordained that David take it.
You must remember that even though God caused David to take the census, He did not force David against his will.
Uhhh... because God did the moving!!!
Here you go again with 'woulda, shoulda, coulda'. Your opinion on whether the word move is determintive or not doesn't matter. Because, in this case, it was. God moved David to take the census, and he did it. Obviously, 'moved' in this text meant it was determinitive.
The burden of proof to prove otherwise lies in your hands. Can you do it without assuming a fairy tale scenario with Biblical characters (like Enyart and his Judas story)?
For the record, anytime the Bible mentions God, or the Holy Spirit, moving people, it is always a determinitive text. The people do what God, or the Holy Spirit, moved them to do.
There was no option. God moved David to take the census; He didn't ask him to.
There is no account of David struggling with the idea of taking the census or not. He was not presented with a choice, and he did not 'give in' to temptation which lead to him taking the census. The Scriptures are very clear that God moved David, then he immediately took the census.
I never given it much thought. I don't believe I elevate certain passages above other's. I may post certain texts on this site, but it's only to prove a point. I don't hold those texts with a higher regard than others.
Z Man
New member
Your analogy fails. Let me explain:*Acts9_12Out* said:
If this is all that is written in one post:
'ZMan posted in this thread, and He became discouraged because of the post'
then 'he' obviously refers to ZMan. If someone was to write in a seperate post:
'Acts9_12Out was discouraged when he read ZMan's post'
It doesn't automatically mean that Acts9 was the 'he' in the other post. It simply tells us of another person who was discouraged at ZMan's post. Both Acts9 and ZMan were discouraged. If the 'he' in the statement about ZMan was referring to Acts9, then another statement would have been made in reference to Acts9 in the same post. That way, there'd be context. For example, for 'he' to refer to anyone other than ZMan, it could read as follows:
'Acts9 started a thread. ZMan posted in this thread, and He became discouraged because of the post'
Now we actually have someone other than ZMan that he could be referred to.
In the same token, Satan isn't even mentioned in 2 Sam. 24. It's an extremely large stretch (an impossible one) to declare that the 'He' in 2 Sam. 24 refers to Satan. That would be way out of context. It's very obvious that 'He' is the Lord.
Why would it mention anything about God being angry with Israel if Satan was the one who moved David to take the census? And, if you truly believe 2 Sam. 24:1 is referring to Satan when it says 'he', why doesn't the text make any reference to Satan later in the passage? Better yet, why doesn't it just say Satan instead of 'he'?
Wrong. When I say God predestined something, you automatically assume that it means God actually commited the act. For example, if I was to say God ordained the murder of an individual by another, you would think that what I said was that God forced one person to kill another (or God directly controlled the actions of the murderer, like a puppet on strings) and then turns around and says that it was their fault. However, what I'm really saying is that yes, God ordained that the murder take place at a specific time and location, and ordained that John be the victim, and Joe be the murderer, BUT (and that's a big but), the intentions of the murderer were truly his own. The actions he committed were truly done by the murderer, and were planned by the murderer, and were desired to be carried out by the murderer. God didn't force Joe to kill John against Joe's will, but ordained that Joe kill John as Joe had planned according to his own heart and desire.
God's never responsible for our sins. Let's please put that false assumption concerning the Calvinist view to rest!
I'm not saying that Satan didn't move David; I just want to make it clear that God was the primary cause - that He ultimately moved David, through Satan, to take the census. To assume it was all Satan's doing is to ignore 2 Sam. 24. And to assume that Satan is the 'he' in 2 Sam. 24 is to make void the rest of the context of the passage. God being angry against Israel, for example.. who cares? What does that have to do with Satan moving David to take the census? Unless, because God was angry, He made Satan move David...
:think:
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man said:
i find no reference to Satan in the 2 Samuel account. Chronicles however contains both God and Satan and that is why i argue it's the more specific account.
because Chronicles clarifies the Samuel account and says it was Satan who incited David.
you are assuming the definition of "moved". you assume it's causative, when it does not have to be so.
Satan did it. you don't believe he can force people into sin do you? regardless, the word "moved" does not have to be interpreted determinitively here.
there is nothing "obvious" about it, especially with the Chronicles account.
God "moved" Jonah to go to Ninevah, but he said no.
purely an assumption.
again, assuming that "moved" is determinitive.
ok. but why do you decide to interpret texts like "and the Lord repented of the evil he had planned to bring" as figurative? do you have any reason for doing so besides making it fit your theology? shouldn't we have a better reason than that?
- Status