DesiringGod (John Piper) answers TomFL!

Chalcedon

Well-known member
One of the ways of God is that he addresses one person who is manipulating another through the manipulated person. We have been given information in scriptures concerning the ways of Satan and the ways of God. Peter in Matt 16 is a good example. He was being manipulated by the devil and Jesus went right to the source of this wickedness and aimed his comments to Satan. This is true in both Eze 28 when he addressed him through Tyrus, and in Isa 14 when he addressed him through the king of Babylon in the context of the "burden of Babylon."
Following is what he said about him through Tyrus.

Eze 28"12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

God is not taking any blame for the deeds of this person. No being is created for the purpose of acting independently of his creator. But every creature is tested because he must of his own heart desire to please his creator. It is not a constant test. It is one test and then a sealing in his righteousness if the test comes out in favor of submission to God. One third of the angelic host fell with Lucifer. The two thirds are never tested again.

If Calvinists continues to hold on to the teaching that created beings do not have a will you are teaching a doctrine of the devil that is 180 degrees opposite of what the scriptures teach and you are presenting God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a way that will lead men away from the truth and you are to be blamed. I am telling you this to warn you,

Some of these things that God has said about this cherub has not yet come to pass, but all of them will.
boy you sure twist what we believe along with the scriptures but hey at least you are consistent.

No one denies man has a WILL but that will is not FREE its in bondages to sin, a slave of sin, sin is its master. So if by free will you mean free to only sin then we can agree otherwise your view is UNBIBLICAL.

Do you even know the meaning of a slave, slavery, bondage and freedom ?

hope this helps !!!
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I mentioned the tether between God's Decree and Man's (d)ecree, because you say it's inescapable that God would be Culpable if God and Man Decree the same thing, and Man Sinned. In other words, I think you say there's a Synergistic Tether between God and Joseph's brothers when they both meant for Joseph to sent to Egypt, that infects God with Culpability for the brother's Evil...
No I stated if God determines all of men's sins he would be culpable

God in his foreknowledge can use the sins of men to advance his plans without culpability

there is a big difference between the two

It's like the police on a drug sting. The police are not guilty of the drug dealers crime

they did not cause the drug dealer to be a drug dealer
 

His clay

Well-known member
No I stated if God determines all of men's sins he would be culpable

God in his foreknowledge can use the sins of men to advance his plans without culpability

there is a big difference between the two

It's like the police on a drug sting. The police are not guilty of the drug dealers crime

they did not cause the drug dealer to be a drug dealer
Then your theology--provided that you hold to God's certain knowledge of future (or logically dependent) events--amounts to the very thing that you deride and chastise. God in His perfect wisdom determined all of men's sins by virtue of his determinative decision to create (in your view); He knew exactly what that decision would entail (in your view). Therefore, according to your own ideology, YOU have God determining all of men's sins; and thusly, YOU would dare to accuse God of being culpable.

While I don't enjoy using the illustration, it does serve a point. John Doe grabs a baby and places it on the highway during rush hour, and with mere predictive knowledge, we can know that it is almost certain that the baby will be hit by a car. Then you can claim all that you want that "free will" supposedly solves the problem, but God's knowledge is not mere prediction. Rather, God knows with absolute certainty (certain or perfect knowledge) in your view. If culpability is registered against John Doe, then so much the more so against your ideology.

The problem here (as the above quote demonstrates) is the fictional assumption of autonomous morality combined with fictional autonomous metaphysics (libertarian freedom) and the immoral decision to apply it to God.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Then your theology--provided that you hold to God's certain knowledge of future (or logically dependent) events--amounts to the very thing that you deride and chastise. God in His perfect wisdom determined all of men's sins by virtue of his determinative decision to create (in your view); He knew exactly what that decision would entail (in your view). Therefore, according to your own ideology, YOU have God determining all of men's sins; and thusly, YOU would dare to accuse God of being culpable.
No foreknowledge and determination are not the same thing

Foreknowledge is simply knowledge of what men might do . It does not cause them to do it

Its like the police on a drug sting. They know the criminal will behave as a criminal but they did not make him that criminal
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
No I stated if God determines all of men's sins he would be culpable

God in his foreknowledge can use the sins of men to advance his plans without culpability

there is a big difference between the two

It's like the police on a drug sting. The police are not guilty of the drug dealers crime

they did not cause the drug dealer to be a drug dealer
If God 'Determines' our Sins, then God would be Culpable for our Sins; we agree...

So do you still take issue with Calvinists?


Ah, I see that His Clay has joined in!
 

His clay

Well-known member
No foreknowledge and determination are not the same thing

Foreknowledge is simply knowledge of what men might do . It does not cause them to do it

Its like the police on a drug sting. They know the criminal will behave as a criminal but they did not make him that criminal
No one said that they were the same thing (straw man fallacy). You have advocated predictive knowledge ("what men might do") of God; you have retreated into an Open Theist stance (heresy position). Further, you deliberately ignored God's determinative decision to create (straw man/selective evidence fallacy). Your drug sting illustration fails to be parallel to God's determinative decision to create, and thusly your illustration fails to deal with the critique your ideology is receiving (red herring fallacy).
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
No foreknowledge and determination are not the same thing

Foreknowledge is simply knowledge of what men might do . It does not cause them to do it

Its like the police on a drug sting. They know the criminal will behave as a criminal but they did not make him that criminal
You're right, Foreknowledge doesn't Cause people to do anything. The point is that God functions through Foreknowledge and 'uses' that knowledge...

Does God USE Foreknowledge?


Ah, His Clay and myself are thinking the same thing but saying it on different levels...
 

His clay

Well-known member
You're right, Foreknowledge doesn't Cause people to do anything. The point is that God functions through Foreknowledge and 'uses' that knowledge...

Does God USE Foreknowledge?


Ah, His Clay and myself are thinking the same thing but saying it on different levels...
One final response and I must get busy elsewhere. In my opinion, it is the fallen mindset (autonomy Gen3), which then leads to the various permutations of autonomy: (libertarian freedom: metaphysical autonomy) (man the measure: epistemological autonomy) (man the judge and creator of an independent morality above their idea of god: moral autonomy). Sadly, the church, in general, has done a poor job of recognizing these elements, and this is why we have such issues between Christians who reject autonomy and Christians who seek a syncretism with autonomy. TomFL's posts demonstrate a hermeneutic deeply influenced by fallen autonomous thought. I do not expect much by way of direct response or meaningful dialogue, and I think that my point has been made, and I'm not one to belabor the point, so I will now bow out for now. I wish you all the best, and my prayers go to you all, to a God who is beyond amazing. God bless.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
You're right, Foreknowledge doesn't Cause people to do anything. The point is that God functions through Foreknowledge and 'uses' that knowledge...

Does God USE Foreknowledge?


Ah, His Clay and myself are thinking the same thing but saying it on different levels...
Yes

Foreknowledge and determination are not the same thing

I reject any such equating
 
T

TomFL

Guest
No one said that they were the same thing (straw man fallacy). You have advocated predictive knowledge ("what men might do") of God; you have retreated into an Open Theist stance (heresy position). Further, you deliberately ignored God's determinative decision to create (straw man/selective evidence fallacy). Your drug sting illustration fails to be parallel to God's determinative decision to create, and thusly your illustration fails to deal with the critique your ideology is receiving (red herring fallacy).
Then how do I have the same problem ?

And I did not mention God as employing predictive knowledge

God knows all things which might happen in any possible circumstance

and I certainly have not mentioned open theism

You are completely wrong here. I do not believe in open theism, and never even suggested it.

Your claim is baseless





l
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JDS

Well-known member
boy you sure twist what we believe along with the scriptures but hey at least you are consistent.

No one denies man has a WILL but that will is not FREE its in bondages to sin, a slave of sin, sin is its master. So if by free will you mean free to only sin then we can agree otherwise your view is UNBIBLICAL.

Do you even know the meaning of a slave, slavery, bondage and freedom ?

hope this helps !!!
A slave has a bound body, not a bound will, Civic. Good grief. You could not have a better chapter to teach the difference this than Romans 7.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
If God 'Determines' our Sins, then God would be Culpable for our Sins; we agree...

So do you still take issue with Calvinists?


Ah, I see that His Clay has joined in!
Of course

All the quotes I provided show just that

To the extent some Calvinists may reject such determination I am am pleased
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Yes

Foreknowledge and determination are not the same thing

I reject any such equating
It's your Right to reject it, but should you? Since God USES Foreknowledge, he Determines things based on that knowledge. His Clay's point is that God knew Adam would Fall but Created the heavens and the earth despite knowing that by this, Sin would Commence. Now, if you spent time with me on the Secular Atheism Board, you would see them use your Notion that God is Culpable for Sin and Death; but you and I reject any such equating. They won't accept a 'un-unh' answer; like you, they will swear that God is Culpable merely by Creating the world. Go over to that Board, and I'll show you...

What would you say to them about God's involvement in the Commencement of Sin? And if your explanation would be good enough to prove to THEM that God is not Culpable for the Commencement of Sin, why would that not be a good enough reason to prove it to yourself? If it's not good enough to prove it to you, it's not good enough to prove it to them...

Right?
 

JDS

Well-known member
You're right, Foreknowledge doesn't Cause people to do anything. The point is that God functions through Foreknowledge and 'uses' that knowledge...

Does God USE Foreknowledge?


Ah, His Clay and myself are thinking the same thing but saying it on different levels...
Foreknowledge is a NT doctrine and is associated with the people God knew in time past. IOW, God knew them before. You will not find this doctrine in the OT. Believing these words should be enough to drive this point home.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

No people, his people?
Using no people to provoke his people?

Anybody ought to be able to figure out that Israel was known of God in the OT and gentiles were never the people of God. No gentiles are foreknown.

Look at this;

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

He knew Israel before, they are foreknown. He did not know gentiles before.

How simple is this? He is now dealing with a remnant of believers of Israel and filling up the house with gentiles who were never known f him until they get saved.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Then how do I have the same problem ?

And I did not mention God as employing predictive knowledge

God knows all things which might happen in any possible circumstance

and I certainly have not mentioned open theism

You are completely wrong here. I do not believe in open theism, and never even suggested it.

Your claim is baseless





l
Last night I watched a Live Cast from the Provisionalists Perspective. One of the Provisionalists said he was close to Open Theism. They spoke a lot about working hard to keep Calvinists from infiltrating their Churches...

Do you think that Provisionalists should work as hard to keep Open Theism from infiltrating their Churches?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Last night I watched a Live Cast from the Provisionalists Perspective. One of the Provisionalists said he was close to Open Theism. They spoke a lot about working hard to keep Calvinists from infiltrating their Churches...

Do you think that Provisionalists should work as hard to keep Open Theism from infiltrating their Churches?
What has that to do with me ?

Yes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top