Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:19 am
I'd respectfully disagree . . . our positions are each becoming incredibly clear, I think. With regard to God's relationship the the sin of man, you've clearly stated that God is sovereign and that "sovereignty has benefits." At this point, I'm looking to clarify your thinking in some areas that I see as contradictory.OK. Let's breathe a little. We are getting nowhere.
With regard to Eph. 2:8, it is clear that you hold to a position that is primarily challenged on grammatical grounds, whereas the position I hold is primarly challenged on syntatical grounds. So, again, I see us as getting plenty accomplished
Now, time out . . . let's look at what you yourself said:False: God cannot sin, for in Him there is no darkness. But that doesn't answer the question. I agree that Absalom's sin was his own, and that he "freely" committed the act (No one put a gun to his head and forced him to). You agree that "God gave David's wives to Absalom". OK? Why? After all, didn't God say that He would raise up evil in David's own house? Did God raise up that evil? What was that evil?
So, what do you mean by "sovereignty has its benefits," and how does that show the fault in my logic?Puritan Lad wrote:The problem with your logic is #3. . . . Sovereignty has it's benefits.I wrote: 1) The person who does a sin is a sinner.
2) God did Absalom's sin "openly before all Israel."
3) Therefore, God is a sinner.
Second, you say that Absalom "freely" commited the act, and yet you also argue that God moved Absalom's will so that he would commit the act. Question: had God not moved Absalom's will, then would Absalom have commited his sin?
As for your questions, yes, God gave David's wives to Absalom. I say it again: that is not a sin. How did God do it? He took Absalom's sin (not a sin that He caused Absalom to commit) and used it to punish David. Thus, God is in the right, and Absalom is in the wrong. Absalom freely chose (not "freely" chose) his course of action.
No. It was inevitable in the sense that God would take David's wives form him. It was inevitable in the sense that God was fully aware of what Absalom would do, and therefore He knew how He would use those actions. But, Absalom was perfectly capable of not commiting the sins he did. He knew right from wrong, and his conscience (is that not from God, PL?)--as well as the Law--confirmed those actions to be evil. He proceeded anyway.When God pronounced this curse on David, was Absalom's incest inevitable? If so, why?
Yes. He sends them on those people that have already disobeyed Him.Does God send evil Spirits? Lying Spirits? Strong Delusions?
I have never argued that He does have a plan B or that God does not work sovereignly in the sinful acts of men. Question: Do you believe that God is temporal or atemporal?God clearly works sovereignly in the sinful acts of wicked men. He decrees them, and He works to bring them to pass. God has no “Plan B”.
Allow me to quote you again:Regarding the proper use of pronouns, there are huge difference between Eph. 2:8 and your examples. ie.
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26, NIV)
(This) clearly refers to Jesus entire statement. While this is acceptable in this case, a more direct, correct question would read, "Do you believe this statement?" In this case, the pronoun has a clear antecedent.
In Ephesians 2:8, I hold that, despite the gender difference, the pronoun "that" has a clear antecedent as well, "faith". In your view, there is no clear antecedent, which would be bad grammar at best, and a totally confused statement at worst
Are you going to disagree with yourself? I've provided some eight or so examples in which a demonstrative pronoun can refer back to a concept, phrase, clause, etc. That is a grammatical fact. Do you agree with this or not?You wrote:It is bad Grammar, in any language, to have a pronoun without a clear antecedent.
In Eph. 2:8, there are two options: the pronoun either refers back to a specific word or back to a concept. If the former, it can refer either to "grace" or "faith." If the latter, it must refer to "salvation-by-grace-through-faith." Again, look at the statement:
- You are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of yourselves . . .
While you are doing this, I will ask you to provide references. I've provided Wallace, a Calvinist writer of the standard Greek grammar today. I've offered Mounce and Robertson. I have provided Calvin. If you disagree, I expect you to show me where, why, and provide a counter source, as I did with your Lynchburg reference.
Ok, so we have Acts 3:18, Phil 1:26, and now Is. 43:10. Is there ANYTHING else you want to add? I'm giving you the chance now, because if you try to bring up other proof texts, I'm going to point back here as to why you can't. Put another way: on what verses are you now basing your position, PL?And you did not deal at all with Phil. 1:26. I agree that Paul mention belief only in passing, but he still mentioned it, and said that it was granted to us on behalf of Christ. Did Paul make a mistake?
While we are at it, I'll introduce Isaiah 43:10, where God chose Israel, so that they may believe (not because they did believe). BTW, How is your Aramaic? This one is pretty clear as well.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
In any case, I hold faith to be a gift from God. If you disagree, you still need to explain where it comes from. You say that it is an attribute of man. So please answer the question.
Why do some believe and some do not, since "All men have the ability to believe/trust"? What makes the difference?
We'll see . . .When you have adequately dealt with these issues, than I'll retract my statement that faith is a gift from God.
God bless
edit: Canuckster, thanks for the reminder - it's always good to have the voice of civility/reason at the appropriate places, haha