Puritan Lad's Response

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 am

Sorry Jac, your exegesis of Eph. 2:8 is sloppy. I'm curious as to what pronoun you would like to see here. Hay? The Scripture plainly tells us that “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not yourselves; it is the gift of God.” (Eph. 2:8). Would you actually prefer it to say “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And SHE is not yourselves; it is the gift of God”? This verse is pretty clear. Faith is a gift of God. The mixture of the neutral pronoun with any noun not dealing specifically with a person or an object of sexual neutrality is permitted and practiced in every language. Faith may be a female name, but Paul isn't referring to a female here. In Eph. 2:8, “this” is clearly referring to “faith”.

In Acts 3:16 you admit that it “is more literally translated "the faith [which is] through him". You further state that “If faith were the gift, Luke would have used the preposition ek or apo, which mean "from" and "out of" respectively.” Actually, it makes little difference. “Faith by Him”, “Faith though Him”. The point is that He originates it.

I'll read the paper on 2 Peter 1:1 tonight, but the scripture itself seems pretty clear to me.

I agree that Phil 1:29 is referring to the privilege of suffering, but the fact that it says that to believe on Him is granted to us on behalf of Christ cannot be ignored? Why would Paul include this?

The others, I will grant, are a matter of interpretation.

As far as your other post, if faith isn't a gift, but an act on our parts, as you define it, then it is a work. It is something we do, not something done for us. An "act" equals a "work".

PL

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:53 am

You must have missed my point in Eph. 2 . . .

There is a rule in Greek grammar which is paralleled in English grammar, which is that a pronoun matches its antecedant in gender and number. So, in English, if I say:

"John threw the ball to Kelly. He is a good ballplayer." Who is the good ballplayer? John, and we know that because "he" is a masculine pronoun, and "John" is a masculine subject. If I had said, "She is a good ballplayer," then we would have been talking about Kelly.

In Greek, nouns have gender. The word "faith" is feminine. The word "grace" is feminine. The word "salvation" is neuter. The word 'God" is masculine. Therefore, when you use a pronoun to refer to one of these words, you have to put it in the proper gender. In Eph. 2:8, the words "faith" and "grace" are both feminine. If Paul had meant that either of these were the gift, he would have used the feminine pronoun. He did not. He used the neuter pronoun (touto). Therefore, grammatically, "faith" is not the gift.

Further, in Greek, authors commonly used the neuter pronoun to refer back to concepts. Paul does this quite a bit in Eph. 1-2. Therefore, "it is a gift" does not refer to faith. It does not refer to faith. It refers to the concept under discussion, which is salvation.

As for Acts 3, there is a major difference in "through" and "by," and it is completely based on what I said in my last post. dia is the preposition under discussion. The phrase there is genitive and not accusative. If it were accusative, then faith would have originated in Christ, or at least would be based on Him. However, in the genitive, it does not mean that. Further, that idea is excluded. It means to begin somewhere else, pass through something, and continue on. If I go through a door I am not originating in it. It's the same idea here.

As for Phil., I have no problem with people being granted to believe, especially given the passing nature of the comment and context. But, that does not mean that they were given a gift of saving faith. Men are called to Christ to the extent that they accept the revelation given to them. God opens our hearts so that we may believe, but, as noted, that is by hearing through the word of God. It does not mean that we did not have faith. It means that these people had been granted to priviledge of hearing the Gospel so that they might believe.

Finally, if faith is a work - something given to us that we do - then you believe in salvation by works. You just believe that God gives us the works to do so that we might be saved. So, you believe in merited and earned salvation. God does the work for us so that we can earn it. Like I said, nice theology . . . even though it is in direct contrast with Paul's saying that faith is not a work.

God bless

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:35 pm

Jac,

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul actually meant to say that faith is a gift from God in Eph. 2:8. What pronoun do you think he should have used?

What do you make of Isaiah 26:12, especially with the clear Bible teaching that God is at work in the sinful acts of wicked men, such as...

...Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:7)
...Absalom's incest (2 Samuel 12:12)
...Job's enemies (Job 12:9)
...Christ's Crucifixion (Matt. 26:24; Acts 4:28; Acts 2:23; Acts 3:18; 1 Peter 2:8)?

Finally, I don't believe that faith is a work. I believe that the way you define faith makes it a work. An "act" is a "work". I believe that it is a gift from God, totally independent of any contingent faith or belief on our part. He gives His elect faith. Otherwise, those who are saved have managed to construct their own faith via their own resources, and have grounds on which to boast. Belief and faith are a matter of the heart, which God himself gives to us.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Psalms 65:4
"Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts..."

Salvation is a choice...God's Choice.

God Bless,

PL

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:04 pm

The feminine form of the pronoun is aute (pronounced ou-TAY). The masculine form is houtos, and the neuter is touto. For the record, what I'm saying isn't even controversial. It's the position of Calvin himself:

Calvin wrote:And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

Taken from his commentary on Ephesians, available online here.

I'll look at the other Scriptures when I get home tonight. As for your not believing that faith is a work, tell me your thoughts on this: I heard a sermon by John Piper called "The Debtor's Ethic." He pointed out the fallacy of thinking that we could "repay" God by doing good works. The reason is that the very works we do, we do by His grace! Therefore, good gives us the work to do by His grace, so the very work that is supposedly supposed to pay God back is actually getting us further into debt with Him.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:48 pm

puritan lad wrote:Finally, I don't believe that faith is a work. I believe that the way you define faith makes it a work. An "act" is a "work". I believe that it is a gift from God, totally independent of any contingent faith or belief on our part. He gives His elect faith. Otherwise, those who are saved have managed to construct their own faith via their own resources, and have grounds on which to boast. Belief and faith are a matter of the heart, which God himself gives to us.

PL, sorry to interject but could you explain to me, since the elect can know they are elect, why would that not be considered as boasting as well? I mean if I am one of the elect (and I assure you that I am

) why couldn't I boast about it? After all, God chose me and not you (in general). Why would God tell me not to boast (of my works) then turn around and elect me for salvation and not others, giving me a reason to boast? I think boasting goes both ways, not just of works to earn salvation (which it doesn't), but also boasting that God elected me and not you; that's why I believe salvation was universally offered. What do you think?

God bless,

Byblos.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:56 pm

OK . . . those other verses as promised (all verses NIV):

LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done for us. (Is. 26:12)

This is part of a song of praise in which Isaiah is thanking God for His gifts to Israel. He is acknowledging that all success the nation ever had came directly from God.

But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. (Gen. 45:7)

On a personal note, this is the story I preach from when I give my testimony, although I focus my attention at Gen. 50:20. Now, I suspect that all these verses are going to say the same thing, but I suppose we'll see . . .

Anyway, here, Joseph is talking about how God used the evil acts of his brothers to pour out his blessings. Does that mean that God forced the brothers to sin by selling Joseph into slavery? Of course not. It means that God took a bad situation and used it to glorify Himself, in this case, by bringing Joseph through the Egyptian ranks so that he could serve as prime minister to the nation during the famine.

You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel (2 Sam. 2:12)

God is confronting David on his sin with Bathsheba, and He pronounces certain curses: 1) the sword would never depart from David's house (12:10); 2) one of his relatives would take his wives in public (12:11-12); and 3) David and Bathsheba's son would die (12:14).

The specific verse you cited is with reference to the second curse, which is that God would do in broad daylight what David had done in secret. David had stolen Uriah's wife secretly, so another man would steal David's wives openly. Of course, in doing so, that man (Absalom) would be sinning as well, but there is much precedent for this type of judgment. God often used nations like Babylon, Assyria, etc. to punish His people. That fact is grounded in God's warnings in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; if the people rebelled against God, they would suffer a series of calamities, ultimately being their expulsion from their land by heathen nations. God would remove His protection from them so that they would be slaughtered. The same happens here. God removed his protection from David, leaving him open to attack.

Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? (Job 12:9)

I'm not sure where you get Job's enemies as the source of his problems here? It seems to me that he is lamenting all the things that had happened to him, from the loss of his possessions to the loss of his children and even the loss of his health. We know that Satan was the one who did all of this, and, of course, God allowed him to do so. This idea is paralleled in the NT, by the way (Luke 22:31). God allows evil things to happen to us. Sometimes they are natural consequences of our own actions, and sometimes they are a direct result of God's judgment. In the case of the latter, sometimes God does something Himself, and sometimes, He gives us over to Satan.

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. (Matt. 26:24)

This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. (Acts 2:23)

But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer (Acts 3:18)

They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen (Acts 4:28)

and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. (1 Pet. 2:8)

It just occured to me as I read through these verses . . . are you actually trying to argue that God decides that certain people will commit certain sins???

Anyway, certain events are ordained by God to happen. The various judgments on Israel provide good examples. The sinned, so God used evil men to punish them. However, you can't argue that God forced the evil men to sin by attacking Israel! No, what you argue is that God let them have their way, and thus, they were at fault for their own sin. He was not the author of their sin; He allowed it to happen. Fair enough. Take that same principle to the Cross.

God decided the Cross would happen. Peter tells us in one of the verses you cited, Acts 3:18, that these things that happened were God's way of fulfilling His promises in Scripture. So, we see that God let evil men have their way.

Does this mean that God ordained the evil men to do their evil deeds? Does this mean that God was behind it all? No, it doesn't mean that any more than God was the One who forced the Assyrians to destroy Israel. Again, like Job, He simply let evil people have their way, and then He used the evil situations to bring about His good purposes (as in Joseph's life). You cite 1 Pet. 2:8, I assume as proof that God ordained those men to reject the Gospel so that they would crucify Christ. I could have sworn that we went through that before . . . anyway, these people were not ordained to disobey the message. They were ordained to stumble.

Ah, I found what I was looking for. In the Romans 9 thread you mentioned it, and I said if you wanted to use other passages to prove your exegesis of Rom. 9 then your central contention was wrong, so we never went through the details. Anyway, as noted above, the ordaination was not to disbelief, but to stumbling.

So, I'm not really sure what exactly you are trying to prove here . . . God uses evil men's actions to accomplish His own purposes. What does that have to do with faith being or not being a gift?

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:05 am

Byblos,

"Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 10:17)

The point is that, for faith to be contrived of our own resources, there would have to be some inherent goodness within us that the unbeliever does not have. While Jac defined faith above as "the act of believing", I still haven't heard an answer to the question, "Where does our faith come from?" If it isn't a gift from God, then it is up to us to find it or produce it ourselves. If our faith is our own creation, then we should get some of the glory for our own salvation, seeing as how we were able to accomplish that which our unsaved neighbor was unable to do. What is it about a person that enables them to have faith? If we attribute it to free-will, and assume that all men have the exact same free-will, then either...

1.) All men will have the same faith (See 2 Thess. 3:2)
2.) The men who have faith are naturally better men then the one's who don't. (wiser, more resourceful, etc.)

Of course, since wisdom and righteousness are themselves a gift from God, we are right back where we started.

If there is a third option, I'd be happy to entertain it.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:00 am

OK . . . those other verses as promised (all verses NIV):
LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done for us. (Is. 26:12)
This is part of a song of praise in which Isaiah is thanking God for His gifts to Israel. He is acknowledging that all success the nation ever had came directly from God.

Jac, This is a bad translation. It literally says that “you have wrought (made, ordained) all our deeds”. If that isn't a slap in the face of the almighty idol of free will, I don't know what is.

But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. (Gen. 45:7)
On a personal note, this is the story I preach from when I give my testimony, although I focus my attention at Gen. 50:20. Now, I suspect that all these verses are going to say the same thing, but I suppose we'll see . . .

Anyway, here, Joseph is talking about how God used the evil acts of his brothers to pour out his blessings. Does that mean that God forced the brothers to sin by selling Joseph into slavery? Of course not. It means that God took a bad situation and used it to glorify Himself, in this case, by bringing Joseph through the Egyptian ranks so that he could serve as prime minister to the nation during the famine.

No one said that God “forced” Joseph's brothers to do what they did. However, God did work in Joseph's brothers to bring this about. Joseph didn't say that God took a bad situation to use it. He said that God sent him (God performed the work) and that He meant it for good.

You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel (2 Sam. 2:12)
God is confronting David on his sin with Bathsheba, and He pronounces certain curses: 1) the sword would never depart from David's house (12:10); 2) one of his relatives would take his wives in public (12:11-12); and 3) David and Bathsheba's son would die (12:14).

The specific verse you cited is with reference to the second curse, which is that God would do in broad daylight what David had done in secret. David had stolen Uriah's wife secretly, so another man would steal David's wives openly. Of course, in doing so, that man (Absalom) would be sinning as well, but there is much precedent for this type of judgment. God often used nations like Babylon, Assyria, etc. to punish His people. That fact is grounded in God's warnings in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; if the people rebelled against God, they would suffer a series of calamities, ultimately being their expulsion from their land by heathen nations. God would remove His protection from them so that they would be slaughtered. The same happens here. God removed his protection from David, leaving him open to attack.

Jac, this does no respect to the verse whatsoever. God didn't just “remove his protection” and “pronounce the curse”. He took credit for the work, stating “I will do it openly before all Israel”. God did this Jac, not just permitted it. There is no way around the clear wording here. Since you love textual criticism, it literally says “I will accomplish myself this matter before all Israel”. Did Absalom have “free-will” to choose any other course of action? How could he have free-will before he was ever born? I feel tempted to use that evil “P” word again, but I suppose this is too obvious.

Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? (Job 12:9)
I'm not sure where you get Job's enemies as the source of his problems here? It seems to me that he is lamenting all the things that had happened to him, from the loss of his possessions to the loss of his children and even the loss of his health. We know that Satan was the one who did all of this, and, of course, God allowed him to do so. This idea is paralleled in the NT, by the way (Luke 22:31). God allows evil things to happen to us. Sometimes they are natural consequences of our own actions, and sometimes they are a direct result of God's judgment. In the case of the latter, sometimes God does something Himself, and sometimes, He gives us over to Satan.

Again, you are getting around what the text actually says. First, God used the Scythians to plunder Job's possessions, but that's not the point. You explain that “God allows evil things to happen to us”. Job said no such thing. He said that God did it. The message is clear. The Scythians, and even Satan himself, are in the hands of a Sovereign God.

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. (Matt. 26:24)

This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. (Acts 2:23)

But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer (Acts 3:18)

They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen (Acts 4:28)

and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. (1 Pet. 2:8)
It just occured to me as I read through these verses . . . are you actually trying to argue that God decides that certain people will commit certain sins???

Yes. It what the above verses plainly tell us. (I realize that God's Sovereignty in all things, including the sinful acts of wicked men, is a bombshell to modern Christians. We believe, however, that God has "free will". Nothing can happen apart from God's Will). I'll leave it to you prove otherwise.

Anyway, certain events are ordained by God to happen. The various judgments on Israel provide good examples. The sinned, so God used evil men to punish them. However, you can't argue that God forced the evil men to sin by attacking Israel! No, what you argue is that God let them have their way, and thus, they were at fault for their own sin. He was not the author of their sin; He allowed it to happen. Fair enough. Take that same principle to the Cross.

I didn't say that God forced them to sin. I've already explained that throughout this thread. Man's sins are his own. God doesn't force man to sin. He doesn't have to. Man has enough sin in himself that all God has to do is withhold grace, thus turning him over to his own reprobate mind, to follow his own lusts and desires. Thus God can ordain the sinful acts of wicked men without being the author of their sin. Man sins because it is his nature to do so. (Remember: I believe in Total Depravity).

God decided the Cross would happen. Peter tells us in one of the verses you cited, Acts 3:18, that these things that happened were God's way of fulfilling His promises in Scripture. So, we see that God let evil men have their way.

But God did more than just let evil men have their way. Again, God actually performed the work.

Isaiah 53:10
“Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief…”

Does this mean that God ordained the evil men to do their evil deeds? Does this mean that God was behind it all? No, it doesn't mean that any more than God was the One who forced the Assyrians to destroy Israel. Again, like Job, He simply let evil people have their way, and then He used the evil situations to bring about His good purposes (as in Joseph's life). You cite 1 Pet. 2:8, I assume as proof that God ordained those men to reject the Gospel so that they would crucify Christ. I could have sworn that we went through that before . . . anyway, these people were not ordained to disobey the message. They were ordained to stumble.

Say What? What is the difference between being disobedient and stumbling? How were that ordained to stumble in any other sense? Please explain.

Ah, I found what I was looking for. In the Romans 9 thread you mentioned it, and I said if you wanted to use other passages to prove your exegesis of Rom. 9 then your central contention was wrong, so we never went through the details. Anyway, as noted above, the ordaination was not to disbelief, but to stumbling.

So you agree with the “Open Theists” view that God ordained His work to be performed by nameless volunteers. However, The Bible tells us that He was delivered into the hands of wicked men by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

So, I'm not really sure what exactly you are trying to prove here . . . God uses evil men's actions to accomplish His own purposes. What does that have to do with faith being or not being a gift?

I'm establishing what the Bible plainly tells us, that “He has wrought all our works in us”. Therefore, even if you conclude that our faith is something contrived of our own resources (which I strongly disagree), it was still ordained by God. Therefore, even an Arminian must believe, according to these Scriptures, that God predestines based on a foreknowledge of an act that God Himself performs. John Frame explains further…

"The doctrine that God foreordains and directs all events is generally regarded as Calvinistic, and I am not embarrassed to be called a Calvinist. However, other Christian traditions also accept this doctrine, sometimes in spite of themselves. Take Arminianism for example. The Arminian makes much of human "free will," insisting that our free decisions, especially those of religious significance, are not foreordained or otherwise determined by God. He seeks thereby to reinforce the doctrine of human responsibility (a doctrine with which, in itself, the Calvinist has no quarrel). But the Arminian also recognizes (1) that God foreknows the future exhaustively, and (2) that He has created the world knowing what the future will bring. For example, before the foundation of the world, God knew that Joe would make a free decision to become a Christian. Somehow, then, before Joe was born, God knew of his free decision. So even at that time, Joe's free decision must have been inevitable. Why was it inevitable? Not because of Joe's free will, for Joe was not yet born. Not because of God's predestination, because the Arminian denies that possibility from the outset. It would seem that the inevitability in question had some source other than either Joe or God.

[Frame's Note]: That is a scary possibility! In rejecting "divine determinism," the Arminian in effect embraces a determinism coming from some mysterious other source -- another god? the Devil? world history? impersonal laws? In any case, this idea certainly does not leave much room for free will.]

But ultimately God's predestination remains the key element. For God is the one who (1) foreknows Joe's decision and (2) creates the world in such a way that Joe's decision will be made. The decisive factor is God's foreknowing creation. Creation is what sets the whole universe in motion. Is it too much to say that God's foreknowing creation causes Joe to make the decision he makes?

Thus, even Arminianism implicitly concedes the Calvinist point without admitting it. Therefore, some Arminians today have abandoned the premise that God foreknows everything and have moved to a view more akin to that of process theology. But this move is exceedingly dubious scripturally."

Excerpt From Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame pp. 44-45

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:40 am

puritan lad wrote:Byblos,

"Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 10:17)

The point is that, for faith to be contrived of our own resources, there would have to be some inherent goodness within us that the unbeliever does not have. While Jac defined faith above as "the act of believing", I still haven't heard an answer to the question, "Where does our faith come from?" If it isn't a gift from God, then it is up to us to find it or produce it ourselves. If our faith is our own creation, then we should get some of the glory for our own salvation, seeing as how we were able to accomplish that which our unsaved neighbor was unable to do. What is it about a person that enables them to have faith? If we attribute it to free-will, and assume that all men have the exact same free-will, then either...

1.) All men will have the same faith (See 2 Thess. 3:2)
2.) The men who have faith are naturally better men then the one's who don't. (wiser, more resourceful, etc.)

Of course, since wisdom and righteousness are themselves a gift from God, we are right back where we started.

If there is a third option, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Let me ask you this question then: Can a man do anything to avoid going to hell?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:37 am

First things first: Are you conceding the point on Eph. 2:8, Acts 3:18, and Phil. 1:26? As far as your original verse list, those are the only ones left that you've not conceded as being interpretive. Which of those do we still have to deal with?

Second things second, you didn't answer my question about John Piper's sermon. I'll answer your question with regards to faith being a work when you answer mine there.

Getting the, to your most recent verse list . . .

Jac, This is a bad translation. It literally says that “you have wrought (made, ordained) all our deeds”. If that isn't a slap in the face of the almighty idol of free will, I don't know what is.

I don't see how it is a bad translation:

LORD, You will establish peace for us, Since You have also performed for us all our works. (NASB)

LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us. (KJV)

LORD, You will establish peace for us, For You have also done all our works in us. (NKJV)

O LORD, you will ordain peace for us; you have done for us all our works. (ESV)

Jehovah, thou wilt ordain peace for us; for thou hast also wrought all our works for us. (ASV)

LORD, You will establish peace for us, for You have also done all our work for us. (HCSB)

Now, I've not started Hebrew grammar yet, but notice the highlighted words above. All of these, except the KJV and NKJV use "for" us, which is very different from "in" us. So, this is either a textual variation, or the major modern translations have recoginzed a faulty translation on the part of the KJV. You will also notice no consistency with the idea that the works were ordained. This has no bearing at all on the free will discussion. It says exactly what I talked about before. Isaiah is praising God for the works He did for Israel.

No one said that God “forced” Joseph's brothers to do what they did. However, God did work in Joseph's brothers to bring this about. Joseph didn't say that God took a bad situation to use it. He said that God sent him (God performed the work) and that He meant it for good.

Yes he did. See Gen. 50:20. This is exactly paralleled in Rom. 8:28.

Now, can you explain the difference in God forcing Joseph's brothers to do what they did and God working in Jospeh's brothers so that they would do what they did? Did they have a choice, or did God foreordain their actions?

Jac, this does no respect to the verse whatsoever. God didn't just “remove his protection” and “pronounce the curse”. He took credit for the work, stating “I will do it openly before all Israel”. God did this Jac, not just permitted it. There is no way around the clear wording here. Since you love textual criticism, it literally says “I will accomplish myself this matter before all Israel”. Did Absalom have “free-will” to choose any other course of action? How could he have free-will before he was ever born? I feel tempted to use that evil “P” word again, but I suppose this is too obvious.

First off, your "literal quote" isn't TC. It's an argument of translation. Second, I can't speak on proper Hebrew translation (yet). Unfortunately, the best I can do is compare English translations and do word studies in Hebrew. Third, the problem here is that you've read sooooooo much into this text that you can't see the plain meaning. This is what happens when you approach a text with a theological filter.

Notice that in my explanation, I linked everything back to the Covenantal promises of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This text was written by Samuel, a prophet. The role of the prophet is to enforce the Law. They are God's spokesmen Everything they did was in the context of the Covenantal promises, especially with reference to the blessings and curses as they related to obedience/disobedience. Further, you impose on the text a NT-based interpretation of the sovereignty of God and ignore the OT basis of the concept (yet another reason Covenant theology is wrong). I'll deal with this more at the end of this post.

As for your particular objection, you didn't point out anything wrong with my exegesis that I see. I took the plain meaning of the text. God will do openly what David did privately.

Again, you are getting around what the text actually says. First, God used the Scythians to plunder Job's possessions, but that's not the point. You explain that “God allows evil things to happen to us”. Job said no such thing. He said that God did it. The message is clear. The Scythians, and even Satan himself, are in the hands of a Sovereign God.

So God doesn't allow evil things to happen to people? Besides this, you are making a serious exegetical mistake: who is talking here, Job or God? Job, yes? Now, was Job aware of the conversations between Satan and God? No, and therefore, we have to take everything he says as that of a human - a pious one - trying to figure out what is going on in a situation that he does not understand. His entire problem is that he thinks God DID do those things. But, the reader knows better. The reader knows that Satan did it, and that God allowed this to happen. God does not justify Himself or answer Job's accusation at the end of the account. He brings Job to the point where the man is simply forced to trust God to do the right thing. So far as we know, he died thinking God had done those things to him. He probably never knew Satan was behind the entire attack. Besides this, I provided a NT parallel from Christ's own mouth to support what I am saying.

Again, look what you have done. You have taken a misconstrued view of the sovereignty of God and read it into an OT text where it doesn't belong, and to do so, you actually ignore the set up - indeed, the entire purpose - of the book!

Yes. It what the above verses plainly tell us. (I realize that God's Sovereignty in all things, including the sinful acts of wicked men, is a bombshell to modern Christians. We believe, however, that God has "free will". Nothing can happen apart from God's Will). I'll leave it to you prove otherwise.

Let's get this REALLY clear: I asked if you thought that God decides that certain people will commit certain sins, and you said yes. Hey, if that is how you want to believe . . . it's not what the Bible says. These verses you say that teach it . . . how did you put it earlier? "Interpretive" was the word? I'll just stick with the idea that God doesn't sin.

I didn't say that God forced them to sin. I've already explained that throughout this thread. Man's sins are his own. God doesn't force man to sin. He doesn't have to. Man has enough sin in himself that all God has to do is withhold grace, thus turning him over to his own reprobate mind, to follow his own lusts and desires. Thus God can ordain the sinful acts of wicked men without being the author of their sin. Man sins because it is his nature to do so. (Remember: I believe in Total Depravity).

Ah, and the contradictions overflow . . . God decided that I will commit a certain sin, and yet He didn't force me to do it

You can try to explain that away all you like. In the end, God decided I will do it, by your theology. God is responsible. Not me. You can say "God can ordain the sinful acts of wicked men without being the author of their sin," but when you turn around and reject the notion that God uses people to fulfill His ordained purposes, then you leave yourself nothing but a sinful or self-contradictory God. And notice your dependance on the doctrine of TD . . . I keep getting back to this, PL. You are reading into texts what is not their based on your preconceived theological positions. You have a God that ordains certain people to commit certain sins. Good for you. I don't.

But God did more than just let evil men have their way. Again, God actually performed the work.

And you dig your whole even deeper. Not only does not decide I will commit a sin, but God does the work FOR me!!! And you want to cite Is. 53 as proof, which is, as we all know, a Messianic claim passage. You're really all over the place here.

Say What? What is the difference between being disobedient and stumbling? How were that ordained to stumble in any other sense? Please explain

Later. I am at work and am running late reply to this

So you agree with the “Open Theists” view that God ordained His work to be performed by nameless volunteers. However, The Bible tells us that He was delivered into the hands of wicked men by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

No, but God certainly doesn't decide I will commit a certain sin, do it for me, and then stand back and go, "Hey, I didn't do that!" God ordains events. He knows the hearts of men. He knows the actions of men. He uses those actions that they have freely chosen and works them to accomplish His goals, one way or another. See, that's the cool thing about true sovereignty. God doesn't have to set the deck in order to get His way.

Of course, in your view, God decided that Satan would challenge Him on Job, and then proceeded to use Satan as His little puppet to hurt the guy all for His own glory. Nope. You're right. Your God never sins.

I'm establishing what the Bible plainly tells us, that “He has wrought all our works in us”. Therefore, even if you conclude that our faith is something contrived of our own resources (which I strongly disagree), it was still ordained by God. Therefore, even an Arminian must believe, according to these Scriptures, that God predestines based on a foreknowledge of an act that God Himself performs.

No, you are presenting an interpretation of certain OT passages in which you ignore context and read into them an interpretation of NT texts. Anyway, I'v already said that Arminians have a wrong view of election, so your objection holds no merit there. How about trying to argue against what I actually believe instead of catagorizing me with a system I strongly disagree with?

I've read AFGF. Great, great book . . . presuppositionalism is a better approach to apologetics than evidentialism. Anyway, I'm not arguing with frame. I am disagreeing with you. Let Frame take on the Arminians. I have no problem with that, because I'm not an Arminian.

Now, very briefly, as I am out of time: I would suggest that you try to put together a consistent OT theology. Your exegeses have totally ignored the deuteronomic foundation for Jewish life. Put things in that perspective, and then try it again.

God bless

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:12 am

Byblos wrote:Let me ask you this question then: Can a man do anything to avoid going to hell?

Run to Christ. However, those who run to Him, He has enabled to do so. Those whom He hasn't won't.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:51 am

puritan lad wrote:
Byblos wrote:Let me ask you this question then: Can a man do anything to avoid going to hell?
Run to Christ. However, those who run to Him, He has enabled to do so. Those whom He hasn't won't.

So if an unelect decides to run to Christ, is it an excercise in futility? Or are you saying he would not even have the presence of mind to do so?

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:25 am

First things first: Are you conceding the point on Eph. 2:8, Acts 3:18, and Phil. 1:26? As far as your original verse list, those are the only ones left that you've not conceded as being interpretive. Which of those do we still have to deal with?

I'm not conceding anything on those verses, as I have pointed out where your interpretation falls way short of what the verses actually say.
Your biggest problem is that the pronoun in Ephesians 2:8 must refer to either “grace” or “faith”, both feminine. Applying it to Salvation doesn't work, for salvation in this passage is a verb. You may accuse the Hebrew Paul of bad Greek grammar, but that is about all. The simplest, most straightforward interpretation is that faith is a gift from God.

In Acts 3:18, we see again that that which God foretold through the mouths of the prophets, God fulfilled (Himself). You claim that God let evil man have their way. God says He fulfilled it, ie. He did it Himself.

Second things second, you didn't answer my question about John Piper's sermon. I'll answer your question with regards to faith being a work when you answer mine there.

I agree fully with Piper, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. Good works are not a payment for God in any way shape or form. We can add nothing to God's glory. Our good works are the result of our changed life, but He causes them.

Isaiah 61:11
“…the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to sprout up before all the nations.”

Ezekiel 36:27
“And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”

How about that Jac? The Lord causes His people to obey Him.

Regarding Isaiah 26:12, you use the work accomplish (maaseh) as a verb, which it is clearly not. It is a noun, referring to deeds, works, etc. It does not say “all that we have accomplished (verb)”. It says “All our works (noun)”. Big difference.

Now, can you explain the difference in God forcing Joseph's brothers to do what they did and God working in Jospeh's brothers so that they would do what they did? Did they have a choice, or did God foreordain their actions?

God ordained their actions. God did not force Joseph's brothers to sin. He only ordained the situation that they found themselves in, hardened their hearts, and let their own fallen natures take over. For some reason, we are shocked by this. We need only remember that it is by the grace of God alone that we all aren't Joseph's brothers.

First off, your "literal quote" isn't TC. It's an argument of translation. Second, I can't speak on proper Hebrew translation (yet). Unfortunately, the best I can do is compare English translations and do word studies in Hebrew. Third, the problem here is that you've read sooooooo much into this text that you can't see the plain meaning. This is what happens when you approach a text with a theological filter.

Notice that in my explanation, I linked everything back to the Covenantal promises of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This text was written by Samuel, a prophet. The role of the prophet is to enforce the Law. They are God's spokesmen Everything they did was in the context of the Covenantal promises, especially with reference to the blessings and curses as they related to obedience/disobedience. Further, you impose on the text a NT-based interpretation of the sovereignty of God and ignore the OT basis of the concept (yet another reason Covenant theology is wrong). I'll deal with this more at the end of this post.

As for your particular objection, you didn't point out anything wrong with my exegesis that I see. I took the plain meaning of the text. God will do openly what David did privately.

This doesn't solve the problem Jac. It's only a vain attempt to explain away what the Bible actually tells us. Your exegesis says that “God removed his protection from David, leaving him open to attack.” The problem with your exegesis is that this is simply not what the verse says in any way, shape or form. This isn't exegesis, this is textual manipulation. God says, "I will do it". I don't care what kind of TC you use, it cannot be made to say, "I will remove my protection and allow it to happen".

So God doesn't allow evil things to happen to people? Besides this, you are making a serious exegetical mistake: who is talking here, Job or God? Job, yes? Now, was Job aware of the conversations between Satan and God? No, and therefore, we have to take everything he says as that of a human - a pious one - trying to figure out what is going on in a situation that he does not understand. His entire problem is that he thinks God DID do those things. But, the reader knows better. The reader knows that Satan did it, and that God allowed this to happen. God does not justify Himself or answer Job's accusation at the end of the account. He brings Job to the point where the man is simply forced to trust God to do the right thing. So far as we know, he died thinking God had done those things to him. He probably never knew Satan was behind the entire attack. Besides this, I provided a NT parallel from Christ's own mouth to support what I am saying.

Again, look what you have done. You have taken a misconstrued view of the sovereignty of God and read it into an OT text where it doesn't belong, and to do so, you actually ignore the set up - indeed, the entire purpose - of the book!

Sorry Jac, but I'm not letting you off by getting wordy and accusing me of “a misconstrued view of the sovereignty”. Job said that God did (performed) these acts. So did Joseph, Samuel, Luke, and Peter. Were they wrong? Should we remove these verses from the canon, simply because we don't like what they say? What do they say Jac? Let's see if you can explain these verses using the text, without appealing to your theology as you often accuse me of doing. I hold that God ordains and works out everything that ever happens (Isaiah 46:9-11; Eph. 1:11). This is what Scripture says. Can you prove this wrong?

Let's get this REALLY clear: I asked if you thought that God decides that certain people will commit certain sins, and you said yes. Hey, if that is how you want to believe . . . it's not what the Bible says. These verses you say that teach it . . . how did you put it earlier? "Interpretive" was the word? I'll just stick with the idea that God doesn't sin.

See above? I interpret these verses for what they say.

but when you turn around and reject the notion that God uses people to fulfill His ordained purposes.

I did? Where did I say this? I agree that God does use people to fulfill His ordained purposes. In fact, He ordains them for this purpose. I just point out that God doesn't merely take bad situations and use them, but “…I make peace, and create evil (or calamity, trouble): I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7). As for the rest of your comment about OT Theology, etc. you are again avoiding the issue by being wordy, in a sense that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Please answer the following question. Why does God, very clearly, claim the aforementioned sinful acts as His own work? This is clear, regardless of one OT Theology. Please deal with the text itself. If you must go to another verse (always an allowed interpretation), please show how that verse directly contradicts or explains the above. How does that affect the idea of "free-will"? Saying that “God allowed it to happen” or “God removed His protection” just doesn't cut it. God says He did it. He performed the work. What say ye?

If you are busy at work, please take your time. I'm having a slow day.

Blessings,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:33 am

Byblos wrote:
puritan lad wrote:
Byblos wrote:Let me ask you this question then: Can a man do anything to avoid going to hell?
Run to Christ. However, those who run to Him, He has enabled to do so. Those whom He hasn't won't.
So if an unelect decides to run to Christ, is it an excercise in futility? Or are you saying he would not even have the presence of mind to do so?

The second. The unelect will not run to Christ, for the love darkness and hate the light.

The unelect can "taste" of Spiritual things, join churches, even go into the ministry and work miracles (Matthew 7:21-23). But that cannot and will not run to Christ, in the full sense. They may seek His blessings, but will not carry their cross. They do not have eternal life, for they are not His sheep.

As I stated earlier, election is a positive, not a negative. No truly penitent sinner has ever been turned away from Christ because of election. If not for election, there would be no truly penitent sinners.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:13 pm

puritan lad wrote:
Byblos wrote:
puritan lad wrote:
Byblos wrote:Let me ask you this question then: Can a man do anything to avoid going to hell?

Run to Christ. However, those who run to Him, He has enabled to do so. Those whom He hasn't won't.

So if an unelect decides to run to Christ, is it an excercise in futility? Or are you saying he would not even have the presence of mind to do so?

The second. The unelect will not run to Christ, for the love darkness and hate the light.

The unelect can "taste" of Spiritual things, join churches, even go into the ministry and work miracles (Matthew 7:21-23). But that cannot and will not run to Christ, in the full sense. They may seek His blessings, but will not carry their cross. They do not have eternal life, for they are not His sheep.

As I stated earlier, election is a positive, not a negative. No truly penitent sinner has ever been turned away from Christ because of election. If not for election, there would be no truly penitent sinners.

Sorry for all the questions PL, I hope I'm not sidetracking you from your discussion with Jac but this is truly a very difficult concept to grasp (at least for me).

I know you've touched on this before, but could you explain once again, if the elect are predestined for eternal salvation from the beginning, what would be the reason for Christ's coming to save the elect? Weren't they already saved by virtue of being predestined? Doesn't predestination make Christ's coming superfluous, as far as the elect are concerned?