SovereignGrace
Well-known member
Oopsy, poopsy! 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️That's why I put Luke 6:40 there as a response:
"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. "
D'oh!
Does Gods Meticulous Determination, Of All Things, Make God Evil?
- Thread starter Sketo
- Start date
zerinus
Well-known member
You are mistaken about that. The Bible says that God is holy, and wants us to be holy like him: Leviticus 11:44, 45; 1 Peter 1:15-16. That means that there is a standard of holiness that God adheres to, and he expects us to abide by the same standard. It is not one rule for him, and a different rule for us. The same applies to all the other attributes of God. For example the Bible says that God is just. Does that mean that he has a different standard of justice that he adheres to, from the one he expects us to adhere to? Obviously not, otherwise nobody would know what standard to apply, or adhere to.
I think you have misunderstood that scripture. Numbering Israel was not the issue there, but their motivations for doing it that was an issue. God’s motive for doing it was a different one from David’s.
See above.
Not following you with that one. I am typing quickly on a hand held device, and I don't have too much time to think!
You have misunderstood that scripture as well. “Evil” in that context means calamity, hardship, punishment, not “wickedness”.
That is pure heresy. God never “makes man sin”. God “cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13)
Don’t buy into the Westminster Confession. I like the Bible better!
zerinus
Well-known member
God does not “cause” any man’s sin.
Septextura
Well-known member
What is a forum equivalent of slamming the door shut to a Mormon?
T
TomFL
Guest
And as I stated you are not able
You can claim error but you cannot prove error
Contextually the passage does not support youi
zerinus
Well-known member
I thought the purpose of the forum was theological debate and discussion—the denominational affiliation of the poster being irrelevant. I am willing to learn from those who disagree with me, if they present a better argument; their denominational affiliation being irrelevant. I was expecting that others would do the same. As Jesus said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?” (John 18:23)
Sketo
Well-known member
T
TomFL
Guest
Did Adam have free will ?
Sketo
Well-known member
I believe Adam had Voluntary will... not “free” will!
“Voluntary” carries less connotations than “free”!
T
TomFL
Guest
so God did not meticulously determine all things ?
PS
voluntary
[ˈvälənˌterē]
ADJECTIVE
- done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
Sketo
Well-known member
My answer is found here...
Search | Monergism
Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.
www.reformationtheology.com
T
TomFL
Guest
We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will
so adams act could not have been voluntary
and that article appears to be double speak
Theo1689
Well-known member
Sorry, but that's a non sequitur.
Literally, "it does not follow".
Do you even KNOW what "voluntary" means?
Are you actually denying that Adam had a "will"?
Because Calvinists don't.
(Proving once again you don't understand the FIRST thing about the theology you're presuming to attack.)
T
TomFL
Guest
Do you ?
voluntary
[ˈvälənˌterē]
ADJECTIVE
- done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
Of course I do not deny Adam had a will
But If you are going tohold to the meticulous determination of all things however you must logically conclude Adam was determined
Theo1689
Well-known member
What dictionary are you quoting?
Because "voluntary" come from the Latin, "voluntas", meaning "will".
Here is Merriam-Webster:
: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
It doesn't say, "proceeding from the FREE will", it merely says, "proceeding from the WILL".
We all have "wills".
But we don't have "free" wills.
T
TomFL
Guest
The very first one I found online
Here is
Merriam Websters
Definition of voluntary
(Entry 1 of 2)1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consenta voluntary actionvoluntary cooperation
2: unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMININGa voluntary participant
3law
a: done by design or intention : INTENTIONALwas convicted of voluntary manslaughter
b: acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligationa voluntary conveyance
4: of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the willvoluntary muscle movementsvoluntary behavior
5: having power of free choicea voluntary agent
6: provided or supported by voluntary actiona voluntary institution/organization
It supports the same thing
See above
You appear to have stopped short
I posted all that Merriam Webster has above
Theo1689
Well-known member
Well, there are two problems with your abuse of references, such as Scripture, lexicons, and dictionaries:
1) M-W is NOT a "theological" dictionary. It defines terms primarily in secular contexts, not theological contexts.
2) When dictionaries refer to "free will", they are NOT referring to a theological concept, but merely of "uncoerced" will. For instance, nobody coerced Pharaoh to refuse to let the people go, that was his own uncoerced decision, and that is why he is culpable for his actions. That doesn't deny that it was God who hardened his heart in the first place.
Sketo
Well-known member
I agree!
I’m not sure why he so desperately needs it to be “free” instead of “voluntary”!
I mean if he agrees that they are so synonymous why the push back against “voluntary”!
This is why I prefer “voluntary will”...
The “will” is not...
Free” from want...
Free” from bias...
Free” from the hearts desire...
Free” from sin character...
Free” from sin nature...
Free” from sin-set-of-options created by the above faculties... for the will!
Wouldn’t it just be more... well... Biblical to use “Voluntary Will” instead?
Theo1689
Well-known member
And if "will" already means "free will", then why do you need the adjective "free", since they're pretty much saying it's redundant?
T
TomFL
Guest
Funny but you quoted merriam Webster yourself
So were you abusing a dictionary
In any case a look at variou translations leads one to the same conclusion
(MLV2017) But I wished to do nothing without your viewpoint; in order that your good deed may not be according to necessity, but according to your voluntary deed.
(ALT) But I wanted to do nothing without your consent, so that your good [deed] shall not be as by necessity but by a voluntary [action].
(Mace) but I would not do any thing without your consent; that your benefaction might not appear any ways forc'd, but perfectly voluntary.
(Douay-Rheims) D:ModulesBut without thy counsel I would do nothing: that thy good deed might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary.
(EMTV) But I wished to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good might not be by necessity, but by being voluntary.
(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will.
(GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will:
(csb) But I didn't want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.
the two appear interchangeable