Both AMR and Nang openly blaspheme God and are proud to do it. They are both evil.
No, it cannot.
Please elaborate. As asked, the answer is a strong 'no' but perhaps you are meaning something that is not apparent to my reading of your question.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Really good point! :up:
Was it evil for Tambora to post it?
Was it evil GM to create it?
Did GM accomplish it's creation in opposition to your god's will?
Is it your god's will that it be taken down?
Who exactly are you complaining to about this, your god or Knight?
What if it's your god's will that Knight should ignore your complaint?
Who are you going to complain to then?
How is it possible that Calvinists do not see the blatant contradiction that exists between their doctrine and practically every word they say? They claim to believe that the future is completely settled and that their god has predestined every event that happens and yet they live their lives and speak to others as though they were Open Theists. They act and talk as though the things they do and say make a difference and can actually change things. AMR's signature makes the claim that "we are all Calvinists on our knees", the truth is that all Calvinists are Open Theists every minute of every day that they aren't thinking about their doctrine and sometimes even then! They're just a walking, talking mass of contradictions.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Do you consider the reality of the Lake of Fire to be a scare tactic? I would have to say a resounding YES!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My reasons for remaining are not likely your own. I can deal with what comes my way. You earlier baited a response from me about the video, so I took the bait and gave a response, nothing more. When I am truly "outraged" there will be no mistaking it. I have only been so once in the years as a member herein, long before you arrived. I paid for it with a ban (one of four, btw), put it behind me and try to behave per the rules in place, stated and unstated. Like you, I support the site with subscription and donation monies, too. It is Knight's house and he can do as he pleases. One's own conscience needs to guide he or she as to whether one remains or not. My conscience is not driving me to leave any time soon. I suspect I will leave when I am called home to glory and someone will just find me expired at the keyboard.
Nang is her own woman and I tend to stay out of the affairs of our female sisters behaviors and goings on, leaving that to others more inclined to tread where this man fears to go. :AMR: If I have something to offer a sister that might bring scandal upon the witness of our faith, I tend to offer that up privately. If I am pointedly the object of a sister's comments, I think twice before weighing in, and do so quite rarely and hesitatingly.
AMR
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Disagree. When 'all things' work to the glory of God, there is no 'itemizing' afterwards. This is a bit like asking if "whole" world means "whole world."
Ask rather "What does that mean, AMR?" BEFORE we go off on meaningless tangents
lain: Well, unless the agenda is as we both detest above, simply to embarrass or incorrectly/dishonestly seeking to discredit (whether that was the previous intent or not).If it is accurate. If not... :nono:
How very presumptuous, AND preemptive of you...
Um, nope. You can't. Not from an OV perspective. You'd have to literally change the question for it to make sense.
Nope. RATHER God had no idea it was going to happen and didn't realize that Dalmer was going to do it again and again and again OR you have a God that ALSO allowed it to happen. Open Theism dumbs things down to the ridiculous instead of dealing 1)with facts or 2) intelligibly answering what MUST be answered. You are honestly smarter than this to excuse this kind of mindless answer. God CERTAINLY ordained/allowed (a few qualifiers to make that difference, there really isn't a difference between them other than cognitive dissonance) the atrocity to happen. Why? is rather the pertinent question BUT you won't even admit this much (dishonestly or ineptly imho), so you jump on the accusation wagon for want of an actual cogent argument as far as I'm concerned.
You didn't bother to answer the question. You just dismissed it. I realize you guys don't or can't ever get a handle on this fact. You have chosen that simply dismisses God having ANY kind of foreknowledge and THEN abusing it to the ridiculous. It is frankly, theologically untenable. It is sad that a guy with some intelligence settles for what I believe is glib.
Sure, vitriol and a lack of cognitive appreciation looks like winning :dizzy: Sorry, you've done no such thing. You rather love the shallow thought and the hollow victory literally because ▲this▲ is what you settled for
meaningless assertion
God, yep. You, nope.
Right, He had no idea the grapes were no good :dizzy: I have roses outside. Believe me, I had EVERY idea the one that was dying was dying and that I'd likely not have good roses off that bush. God? Nope. Open Theism goes off of a translation on this one to the absurd. Of COURSE God knew the grapes would be bad! No question. THAT is the difference. I believe He planted them DESPITE bad grapes for a reason or there would/could be no bad grapes. How could a perfect God plant any other kind of seed without knowing what it was going to produce? That is an OV paradigm. The rest of us, Calvinist or not, realize that God ensures no matter how bad, God works good out of even the worst for those who love Him.
This isn't an OV answer though. You have to be in league with the Calvinist and every other theologian to say it by necessity and logic.
Actually eliminating the possibility would also accomplish this purpose. Question for you (and me and AMR): Why didn't God do that? If you don't wickedly/delightedly jump all over my 'why' answer, I'll not jump all over yours either (I won't anyway, I simply want us all biblical thinkers, the OV will stand or fall without my ridicule and I completely trust God to accomplish His truth, even here in our conversation right now).
:think: Rather the passages point, in the broad sense, is about truth. Gamaliel was saying that whatever is from God cannot be thwarted. Truth stands no matter who tries to tromp on it. IOW, Gamaliel was proving a broad point of truth application which surely applied to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well.
:nono: BUT there is no prejudism on point. AMR is NOT advocating we allow abortion or Dalmers or fascism. Did you then, ask him questions about why not? ESPECIALLY in light of what is assumed he meant? I guarantee you 100% unequivocally without a single reservation, AMR is against every one of these AND that he believes God is against evil as well. Example: You and I both have read of atrocity in the Bible AND would agree it was God's purpose to have them recorded there. He is using the recording of atrocity to teach us something. That does not mean God ever desired sin to enter His world BUT the Calvinist is saying God is not and never will be inept, make a mistake, be caught by surprise. He just isn't that incapable.
So I can put you down for "Gamaliel was wrong"?
Simple questions make this look theologically and biblically ridiculous to me, however. Was Jesus crucified from the beginning of the world, for instance? Was God wrong to use any and every instance of evil to teach a lesson in the scriptures? :nono: Not even by OV standard. Whether you've thought this long and hard still or not, you can't differentiate the playing field. The outcome is exactly the same, no matter if you went OV or Calvinism, or some other route. It is inescapable logic: God makes ALL things work together for good. Think instead of looking for a scape goat. At this point, it is not a Calvinism or OV discussion. It really isn't. It is rather a biblical and logical discussion of that which is inescapable. I believe a LOT of OV theology attempts to simply do that, but I believe it attempts what it cannot reach, logically.
I think AMR agrees with you. I agree with you.
Even an omni-competent God is "in control." Again, I asked 'how much?' Being 'Omni-' competent would mean 'all.' Not being all-competent would mean somewhat 'incompetent.' I'm positive you'd never say that, now follow such logical summations to the end. They have to point somewhere. This is getting a bit long, but am I correct to surmise that we are still talking about a basic principle about whether God is able to glorify any situation? Isn't that the gist of what AMR originally said? As I understand it, AMR was trying to get folks to understand not only that God can/does work all things for the good of all who love God, but that He also pre-plans how to do that. It is the only reasonable explanation imho, for why God would ever allow any kind of evil. There has to be a plan and it has to be good else evil is pointless and God should have stopped it from ever ensuing. I suppose an 'incompetent' God wouldn't have expected it. You know with me that this is precisely what Sanders and others actually think. I don't care what they think (at the moment), I care what you think and that you are thinking.
Once I had read Colossians 1:16-20, especially Colossians 1:17, I no longer was able to agree. I also understand John 15:5 this way. I had at one time read it for 'just' believers, but I think it a universal truth now. I can't escape it.
Again, this kind of theology is closer to 1) a God who is aloof from His creation 2) some things, for the moment, out of His control and able to function independently of God (this is a biggy for presuppositions driving ALL ensuing theology) and 3) a God who is 'part' of His creation rather than author of it, thus can (maybe not necessarily has to) lead to pantheism.
Isn't an ability to redact ANYTHING literally meticulous control, however? I mean, I agree with everything you just said but logically think it points to something other than your conclusion. :think:
I agree. I believe, in a nutshell, AMR and now we are discussing sovereignty and what is essential to existence. Part of the conversation then is largely about Freewill vs Godwill. I agree with you on a lot of points, I think, in the observation of this then. Dalmer definitely used what Satan gave, a will 'free from God's desire' to commit atrocity. "Allowed" is a word that comes up with this kind of discussion BUT AMR and others avoid that because it confuses further down the road again "how sovereign" (in control) God is. I think, really, in the end you and I both agree God is totally in control, and we might even agree about autonomy of evil to some extent BUT we immediately have to compare autonomy and freewill, ever, to sovereignty and God in complete control (not that I mean meticulous when suggesting agreement, I realize we see 'total control' differently, likely). -Lon
Could you explain what you said here Lon, with more detail?: "Dalmer definitely used what Satan gave, a will 'free from God's desire' to commit atrocity."
Lon
Well-known member
Good points, Clete:
If it inaccurately reflects intent, yes. Evil is a maligning and hurt, of course.
Decorative or Prescriptive? Both? Did God accomplish a purpose by its allowance (think 'teachable moment' for example)?
Prescriptive or Decretive?
Both? Other interested parties too? :think:
Decretive or Prescriptive?
:think:
It is true that some Calvinists only believe in a Decretive will.
Perspective, BUT again, this ties into an understanding of God's Prescriptive will. It 'seems' a bit reactionary so some Calvinists do not deem God has a Prescriptive will. For them, perhaps a good question, though I don't think they deny prescription out of hand :idunno:
Lon
Well-known member
Sin is a privation, and absence, from God's will. It isn't a thing, but rather a void. An evil that merely contrasts God's goodness. Harm against another is a lack of Godliness. ANYTHING, then, apart from God is 'bad' 'ugly' 'wicked.'
Good question. "Answering" these questions makes one a lean toward a theological perspective.
Allow me to interject something. I didn't create that video and had nothing to do with its presentation.
:nono: Disagree. When 'all things' work to the glory of God, there is no 'itemizing' afterwards. This is a bit like asking if "whole" world means "whole world."
Ask rather "What does that mean, AMR?" BEFORE we go off on meaningless tangents
If it is accurate. If not... :nono:
How very presumptuous, AND preemptive of you...
Um, nope. You can't. Not from an OV perspective. You'd have to literally change the question for it to make sense.
Nope. RATHER God had no idea it was going to happen and didn't realize that Dalmer was going to do it again and again and again OR you have a God that ALSO allowed it to happen. Open Theism dumbs things down to the ridiculous instead of dealing 1)with facts or 2) intelligibly answering what MUST be answered. You are honestly smarter than this to excuse this kind of mindless answer. God CERTAINLY ordained/allowed (a few qualifiers to make that difference, there really isn't a difference between them other than cognitive dissonance) the atrocity to happen. Why? is rather the pertinent question BUT you won't even admit this much (dishonestly or ineptly imho), so you jump on the accusation wagon for want of an actual cogent argument as far as I'm concerned.
You didn't bother to answer the question. You just dismissed it. I realize you guys don't or can't ever get a handle on this fact. You have chosen that simply dismisses God having ANY kind of foreknowledge and THEN abusing it to the ridiculous. It is frankly, theologically untenable. It is sad that a guy with some intelligence settles for what I believe is glib.
Sure, vitriol and a lack of cognitive appreciation looks like winning :dizzy: Sorry, you've done no such thing. You rather love the shallow thought and the hollow victory literally because ▲this▲ is what you settled for
meaningless assertion
God, yep. You, nope.
Right, He had no idea the grapes were no good :dizzy: I have roses outside. Believe me, I had EVERY idea the one that was dying was dying and that I'd likely not have good roses off that bush. God? Nope. Open Theism goes off of a translation on this one to the absurd. Of COURSE God knew the grapes would be bad! No question. THAT is the difference. I believe He planted them DESPITE bad grapes for a reason or there would/could be no bad grapes. How could a perfect God plant any other kind of seed without knowing what it was going to produce? That is an OV paradigm. The rest of us, Calvinist or not, realize that God ensures no matter how bad, God works good out of even the worst for those who love Him.
This isn't an OV answer though. You have to be in league with the Calvinist and every other theologian to say it by necessity and logic.
Actually eliminating the possibility would also accomplish this purpose. Question for you (and me and AMR): Why didn't God do that? If you don't wickedly/delightedly jump all over my 'why' answer, I'll not jump all over yours either (I won't anyway, I simply want us all biblical thinkers, the OV will stand or fall without my ridicule and I completely trust God to accomplish His truth, even here in our conversation right now).
:think: Rather the passages point, in the broad sense, is about truth. Gamaliel was saying that whatever is from God cannot be thwarted. Truth stands no matter who tries to tromp on it. IOW, Gamaliel was proving a broad point of truth application which surely applied to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well.
:nono: BUT there is no prejudism on point. AMR is NOT advocating we allow abortion or Dalmers or fascism. Did you then, ask him questions about why not? ESPECIALLY in light of what is assumed he meant? I guarantee you 100% unequivocally without a single reservation, AMR is against every one of these AND that he believes God is against evil as well. Example: You and I both have read of atrocity in the Bible AND would agree it was God's purpose to have them recorded there. He is using the recording of atrocity to teach us something. That does not mean God ever desired sin to enter His world BUT the Calvinist is saying God is not and never will be inept, make a mistake, be caught by surprise. He just isn't that incapable.
So I can put you down for "Gamaliel was wrong"?
Simple questions make this look theologically and biblically ridiculous to me, however. Was Jesus crucified from the beginning of the world, for instance? Was God wrong to use any and every instance of evil to teach a lesson in the scriptures? :nono: Not even by OV standard. Whether you've thought this long and hard still or not, you can't differentiate the playing field. The outcome is exactly the same, no matter if you went OV or Calvinism, or some other route. It is inescapable logic: God makes ALL things work together for good. Think instead of looking for a scape goat. At this point, it is not a Calvinism or OV discussion. It really isn't. It is rather a biblical and logical discussion of that which is inescapable. I believe a LOT of OV theology attempts to simply do that, but I believe it attempts what it cannot reach, logically.
I think AMR agrees with you. I agree with you.
Even an omni-competent God is "in control." Again, I asked 'how much?' Being 'Omni-' competent would mean 'all.' Not being all-competent would mean somewhat 'incompetent.' I'm positive you'd never say that, now follow such logical summations to the end. They have to point somewhere. This is getting a bit long, but am I correct to surmise that we are still talking about a basic principle about whether God is able to glorify any situation? Isn't that the gist of what AMR originally said? As I understand it, AMR was trying to get folks to understand not only that God can/does work all things for the good of all who love God, but that He also pre-plans how to do that. It is the only reasonable explanation imho, for why God would ever allow any kind of evil. There has to be a plan and it has to be good else evil is pointless and God should have stopped it from ever ensuing. I suppose an 'incompetent' God wouldn't have expected it. You know with me that this is precisely what Sanders and others actually think. I don't care what they think (at the moment), I care what you think and that you are thinking.
Once I had read Colossians 1:16-20, especially Colossians 1:17, I no longer was able to agree. I also understand John 15:5 this way. I had at one time read it for 'just' believers, but I think it a universal truth now. I can't escape it.
Again, this kind of theology is closer to 1) a God who is aloof from His creation 2) some things, for the moment, out of His control and able to function independently of God (this is a biggy for presuppositions driving ALL ensuing theology) and 3) a God who is 'part' of His creation rather than author of it, thus can (maybe not necessarily has to) lead to pantheism.
Isn't an ability to redact ANYTHING literally meticulous control, however? I mean, I agree with everything you just said but logically think it points to something other than your conclusion. :think:
I agree. I believe, in a nutshell, AMR and now we are discussing sovereignty and what is essential to existence. Part of the conversation then is largely about Freewill vs Godwill. I agree with you on a lot of points, I think, in the observation of this then. Dalmer definitely used what Satan gave, a will 'free from God's desire' to commit atrocity. "Allowed" is a word that comes up with this kind of discussion BUT AMR and others avoid that because it confuses further down the road again "how sovereign" (in control) God is. I think, really, in the end you and I both agree God is totally in control, and we might even agree about autonomy of evil to some extent BUT we immediately have to compare autonomy and freewill, ever, to sovereignty and God in complete control (not that I mean meticulous when suggesting agreement, I realize we see 'total control' differently, likely). -Lon
Lon, I appreciate your desire to have a substantive exchange and I'll attempt to accomodate you as best I can but forgive me, your post is just a hot mess!
You're all over the place! You flip back and forth from defending Calvinism to affirming Arminian doctrine while pretending that it (Arminianism) is Open Theism and that Calvinsm, Arminianism and Open Theism have some common ground on the problem of evil and God's soveriegnty. I can't tell if you understand any one of the three!
But this is not a discussion about Arminianism or Open Theism and so I'll leave all that aside for now and just point out one central point that I think pretty much totally explodes every point you've made in this post in regards to what I've said to and about AMR's stated doctrine (which is normal Calvinism, by the way).
God, according to Calvinism, DOES NOT allow evil!
God allowing evil, in the sense you discuss in your post, is an Arminian doctrine.
Open Theism also teaches that God allows evil but because we logically understand that everything that happens falls under the category of "God allowed it.", which makes it a meaningless thing to say. In the Open View, if God stopped allowing bad things to happen in an evil world, He would be ending the world, which He will do - eventually.
But that is NOT what Calvinism teaches. According to Calvinism, things do not happen because God allows them but because He wills them to happen - period. Which is what AMR both said and believes and which Calvinism clearly teaches and insists must be the case.
They DO NOT believe that the Soveriegnty of God means that God is control of the universe in any kind of general sense or in the sense of highest/unappealable authority but that He is in absolute maticulous control of every event that occurs, no matter how small or how big or how good or how evil. That is what Calvinism teaches and that is what AMR said and that is what he meant. That is what Augustine believed, that is what Luther believed, that is what Calvin believed and that is what Calvinists all over the world both believe and teach. Don't believe me? Go ahead and see if you can get either AMR or Nang to deny it. They will not do so.
You may not like it when someone comes along and makes the meaning of their theological language clear to everyone but that doesn't mean I've done something dishonest or underhanded or unethical. I have not merely made the claim either! I have repeatedly demonstrated that this is what they teach by quoting their very own source documents which they neither deny accepting nor make any attempt to correct or distance themselves from.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
Saw that too. Someone accidentally typed "GM" instead of "CM."
Forgive my stating otherwise. I misunderstood something somewhere and thought that you have created it. My bad.
If you don't mind, I'll keep my post intact because whether it was you or the man on the moon who created the video, my point stands that it's their god who predestined it to be created so why are they complaining to Knight about it?
God bless!
Clete
all things exist with God
Lon,
Do you know what a category error is?
The distinction you make between God's Decretive or Prescriptive will (a.k.a Perfect vs. Permissive will) makes a similar error.
Everything that happens - everything - fits into the category of God's permissive will, including all those things that would othewise be in the category of God's perfect will.
And there is no Calvinist, alive or dead, that will accept the notion that God's permissive will is a subset of His perfect will because to do so is to say that there are things that God wants that He doesn't get or that God did not decree what was included in His prescriptive will, which is everything that actually happens. The distinction is therefore meaningless. It is literally a distinction without a difference.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
Very well. I simply believe Open Theism just never recognizes there is no such thing as a scapegoat, that no matter who you are, logically, if you love God, the questions do not disappear simply because you believe God had no idea about bad grapes. Literally, He had to know 'at some point' there were bad grapes. Open theism simply, logically, can never escape that. You CANNOT say God never expected bad grapes because at some point, even if only at harvest (not at all feasible however), He did. There is no 'surprised God' scenario. This is simply wishful thinking. What does that NECESSARILY (and logically) mean? It means God knows, before evil occurs that evil is going to occur AND that He has complete power to stop it from happening. He didn't stop that kid from stealing the purse (least of atrocities for example). Therefore, logically there is a 'reason' He didn't stop it AND 'because He didn't know' isn't one the acceptable one. I make a LOT more sense than your giving credit for here.
ONLY in the sense that the language allows for a God who is not in total control. As I've stated, even you believe God is in control. Control, imho, always means 'total' logically. You just aren't rethinking your own conclusions. If you'll do so, some of this will make a lot more sense to you than you've allowed. As long as 'your' conclusions are unassailable, God can't do a thing to strengthen your theology. You'd stay 'stagnant' where you are at. I'm not happy where I am, else I'd not need to read my bible any more. I however, am problematically arrogant at times myself so am sympathetic to all like me. We need to all recheck our conclusions. I respect you enough to allow you to question my conclusions, whether that is reciprocated or not.
Correct. "Allowed" being the key term, though some Open Theists wouldn't even go that far with you. They'd say 'had no clue' because to them, God isn't even Omni-competent. I've always appreciated that you are not one among this group.
I disagree. "Allow" by definition, has an amount of 'willing' and 'unwilling' mixed into the definition. What a Calvinist is disagreeing with you about is whether God second-guesses His decision or doesn't realize or know consequences to that 'allowance.'
To a degree, the Calvinist is agreeing with you about 'allowance' BUT saying that God is not haphazard: He doesn't play dice. He knows what the outcome is, therefore the outcome is 100% in His control. The more 'in control' God is, the more I can trust Him to bring me home through adversity ahead of me. He is going to do/has done something already about cancer with me and my loved ones etc. Did He then 'plan' my cancer? Yes. Whether you agree He knew, He still has competency with cancer or He'd be incompetent. A God who is incompetent or makes mistakes (ala Sanders) is not able, is not God. WLJ was talking about the difference between God and [g]od. [G]od has to clearly be able to do what He says, and He is.
If God is not in 'total' control of the universe, does that mean Satan is 'out' of His control? Again, from my perspective, "control" when talking about God necessarily means 'meticulous' and has to. Now, you may disagree, but does following a thought to a logical conclusion as inescapable mean that that doctrine is evil? It isn't just a Calvinist that believes God is in this kind of control, though I realize most of Christianity is freewill theism. It suggests, at least in illogical conclusion, that God is not in complete control of His creation. Try to at least follow that line of thinking for a moment or two.
I can't deny what a scripture says. It says that God raised up Pharoah, for instance, 'for this very purpose.' I can try and explain that, but I can't make it go away. I can't be evil if God can't be evil, for believing that scripture. It isn't possible. I believe God raised Pharoah for that purpose, because I believe that scripture word for word.
Thanks for discussion. -Lon
You mean like unicorns and perfect spheres with two edges and one flat side?
Open Theism does not attempt to escape that, it openly acknowledges it. The problem you have with open theism is in that you overstate its position. Open Theism does not teach that God "had no idea" about how Israel would turn out.
Of course!
Let me just tell you that you will not undermine Open Theism on logical grounds. One of its first principles is that all truth is rational, by definition. Even if you found an error on some specific point it would not damage the whole because Open Theism wasn't constructed backwards like Calvinism was. It did not begin with "the future is open" and construct its doctrines around that a priori assumption. Quite the contrary, the openness of the future is a conclusion, not a premise. The Open View is relentlessly rational. But that's a discussion for another time.
This is not an argument against Open Theism doctrine!
No open theist believes that God was surprised by evil. God thought through the whole process very carefully and prepared for whatever may happen. Open Theism simply teaches that evil was not a foregone conclusion and that Adam and Eve could have remained innocent but chose to rebel. Open Theism simply teaches that their choice was a real choice and that God had things covered either way.
No, you're not, Lon. There is no open theist anywhere that teaches that the reason God didn't stop the theft is because He didn't know it was going to happen. The reason he doesn't stop bad things from happening is because in order to do so He'd have to end the world and He is willing to tolerate the bad for the overwhelming good that will come later. It is His mercy that stays His hand, not ignorance.
If you see an error in my logic then don't just make the claim that I've made an error, make the argument! That's THE reason I'm here! What am I supposed to do, just take your word for it over the conviction of my own mind and conscience?
Show me logically, how God being in control of the universe must mean that God is actively in meticulous control of every event that occurs, no matter how insignificant, nor matter how cataclysmic, no matter how righteous, no matter how wicked. Make the argument, not just the claim.
I've never - ever - read one word from any Open Theist on this site or anywhere else that teaches such a thing.
As I said, Calvinism does not teach that God allows anything. "If it is accomplished, it's because God willed it to be so." That is what Calvinism teaches.
I'm sorry, Lon but this is what Arminians teach not Calvinists. I understand how the two can be confused. It is the reason why I am certainly not an Arminian. Arminianism is just way to Calvinistic.
Not to be personally insulting because I understand the motive behind the sentiment but this is pathetic reason to trust in a god. How about trusting God because He's wiser and more loving and more powerful by far than any enemy that could oppose Him?
No, Lon, He did NOT plan your cancer. It is blasphemy to say otherwise.
What you are saying is that the arsonist who set your house on fire is worthy of praise and adoration because he ran into your blazing house and rescued you from the flames.
God is clearly capable of curing any disease but He did not create cancer. Cancer exists as a result of sin (i.e. because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen.)
Sanders does not teach nor does he believe that God makes mistakes.
WLJ?
No, it does not mean that. Why would it?
I'm all ears (eyes)! Make the argument! How is meticulous control necessarily implied by saying that God is in control of anything?
It's a figure of speech. "Raised up Pharoah" means "raised up the nation of Egypt". It is a common Jewish idiom to use the head of a thing to refer to the whole thing.
Words mean things, Lon and ideas have consequences. This is the reason why Bob Enyart was right in his debate with Dr. Lamerson. You are forced - forced - to prioritize the attributes of God. You will either form your doctrine based on the presumption that God acts righteously or that righteousness is defined by whatever God happens to do. And those two things are not the same! They are opposite. The later turns "righteous" into "arbitrary" when applied to God, it turns justice into it's opposite. So when you come to passages that, on the surface, would seem to be ascribing an unjust act to God then you have to stop and realize that you've misunderstood and that perhaps the plain surface meaning isn't what is really being said.
The trick is that you cannot just do that willy-nilly. You cannot maintain a rational theology by whimsically altering the meaning of the plain reading because it happens to conflict with a favored doctrine. Your decisions in such cases have to be reasoned and well thought out. And it so happens that when you think such issues through, you are forced to pick. Will you favor God's sovereignty (meticulous control) over God's righteousness or vice-versa? Will you place God's quantitative attributes (how big and powerful He is and how much He knows and how much He controls) over His qualitative attributes (His righteousness, kindness, wisdom, love, etc.)
Once again, lots more to say but out of time for now.
Resting in Him,
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
After reading that exchange, it comes to mind that the Reformed view of God is a form of irreducably complexity: remove one element of His nature as it is conceived -- His absolute sovereign control, specifically -- and He isn't God. Not carrying water for the OV, just making a humble observation.