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.
Don't make a grammatical argument if you aren't going to acknowledge the rules of grammar, PL. I've already said that it is standard Greek to use the neuter pronounto refer to the previous CONCEPTS. The pronoun does not refer to the word "salvation," but the concept Paul was talking about, which is the way we are saved. Read it this way:
"We are saved by grace through faith; and this salvation of grace is a gift of God."
That's what the grammar means. If you don't like it, take it up with Wallace, Mounce, Robertson, or any of the other standard works on the matter. The
fact is that the word "it" CANNOT refer to the word "faith." Forgive me, but I happen to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Paul meant what he said.
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.
No, interact with my exegesis and try again, rather than just stating something I have already grammatically shown to be incorrect. Here are my words again, with emphasis to make things clearer:
I wrote: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.
And what about Phil. 1:26?
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.
You'll see what it has to do with it:
So you agree that we cannot "pay God back" because the very good works we do, we do because God gives us the grace to do them. I suppose you accept the fact that "believe" is a verb. So, we are given, by God, the ability to believe in Him, as you have said over and over again. Look at the parallel:
God gives us the grace to do good works (something we do).
God gives us the grace to believe (something we do).
Now, does grace come through faith, or does faith come through grace?
- 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.”
Both of these are references to the Mill. Kingdom. In fact, these verses destroy your entire theology, PL. Notice the future tense of Is. Had He not done it yet? But were there not already believers, and was not Israel the Church in the OT? Ez. further describes the circumstances in the New Covenant. But, in your theology, the NC had always been in effect, because every OT saint was "in Christ." Thus, both Isaiah and Ezekiel should have used the past or present tense, not the future. And even further, Ezekiel clearly is writing to the elect (in your view). God will certainly not put His Spirit in the non-elect! But, wait . . . have not the elect always walked in God's statues, and have they nt always been careful to obey His rules?
That's what happens when you spiritualize a very literal prophecy, and when you divorce it from it's Mosaic context.
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.
Quote me where I use it as a noun, because I'm not following you, and then demonstrate how the NIV is a bad translation given what I provided.
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.
Ah, so God "looked down through the vast corridors of time and saw their evil deeds, and He ordained them to happen." Is that about right? So, in reality, God "His work to be performed by nameless volunteers"?
Now, I can't help but notice a double standard on your part. What is the difference in God's ordaining a man to be saved and God's ordaining a man to sin? You argue through Irresistable Grace that God decides a man will be saved, and therefore gives him the grace to believe, and that man WILL believe. But yet, using the SAME TERMINOLOGY, you argue that God decides a man will sin, and then let's him do his own thing??? So why can we not say that God's "ordaining" a person to be saved simply means that He "ordains their actions" . . . that action being faith? I didn't know you were an Arminian . . .
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".
I said that God did in the open what David did secretly. As Urriah's wife was taken from him privately, God took David's wives pubically.
As for the God removing His protection/allowing this to happen, the fact that you refuse to see that just shows how blind you are choosing to be to the clear teaching of Scripture:
- Job 1:12 - The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
2 Sam. 24:1 - Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
2 Chron. 21:1 - Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
Luke 22:31 - Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.
God allows Satan, and others, to do us harm if He has to discipline us. Sorry you don't believe that.
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?
Yes, Job said that God performed the acts. He was wrong. Satan performed the acts. I've already explained all the verses you've provided and then some. Like I said, you are the one who refuses to put these passages in their OT context, and instead insist on putting on them an incorrect understanding of NT theology. That's your problem, not mine.
See above? I interpret these verses for what they say.
Hey, like I said, you believe that God decided certain people will commit certain sins. Glad you believe that. Your God is a sinner, the author of sin, is glorified by sin, and glories in sin.
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?
You say that Arminians are at fault because God uses their actions, which He did not decide what they would be. Thus, for you, God decides what those actions are. You then turn around and say that God doesn't use people's own actions - He chooses their actions for them. And so, you do exactly as I mentioned.
Now, I've already shown how God "claims sinful acts as His own." He says He will let them happen. But, PL - look: you are arguing that God commits sinful acts! Fine. Believe that. It's evil to so, but that's between you and God.
In the meantime, let's just all get together and throw Osama bin Laden a party, because he is, after all, only doing the will of God. God decided he would do those things - hey, GOD is responsible for 9/11! Yeah . . . good theology.
God bless (if it's His will, of course!)
