slw, on May 27, 2010 at 8:00 pm Said:
The Bible makes it quite clear that God is, in fact, not the author, promoter, inciter, or anything other than the judge of sin. Therefore, Calvinism is an unbiblical system, and not true.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-8-calvinism-doesnt-charge-god-with-the-authorship-of-sin/#comment-4693
2 Sam 24:1,10
1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."...10But David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly."
Act 4:23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them.
ReplyDeleteAct 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
Act 4:25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--
Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Act 4:29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness,
Act 4:30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus."
"16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled."-Revelation 17:16-17
ReplyDeletePerhaps you would find this useful:
ReplyDeleteThen Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan, and bring me word that I may know their number." 1 Chronicles 21:1-2
SLW,
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you harmonize those two passages? Is Satan the middle man in this transaction? If so, this means that God incited David indirectly rather than directly, through the medium of a second party. How does that change the underlying issue of divine responsibility? After all, Calvinism also has a doctrine of second causes.
I approach the apparent differences by what is scripturally clear. The passage from Chronicles is very clear, as is James 1:13-17. So I take it that something Israel did aroused a response of anger from God which left David open to the temptation of Satan. I see no reason to put the onus for sin or it's instigation on God in this occurence.
ReplyDeleteIf this were merely a case in which God's actions were made indirectly rather than directly, it would not change the underlying issue of responsibility. I do not see that as what was occuring.
Great. Now "the LORD incited David" really means "the LORD had nothing to do with it."
ReplyDeleteOf course, one could start with the 2 Samuel passage as being absolutely clear and then interpret the 1 Chronicles passage in light of the one in 2 Samuel.
SLW SAID:
ReplyDelete"I see no reason to put the onus for sin or it's instigation on God in this occurence."
Well, one reason might be because that's exactly what 2 Sam 24 says.
Is that exactly what it says? I think I've explained myself sufficiently in that regard.
ReplyDeleteSLW SAID:
ReplyDelete"Is that exactly what it says? I think I've explained myself sufficiently in that regard."
Yes, exactly.
What you did was to ignore the wording, then cite two different passages in its place.
"What you did was to ignore the wording, then cite two different passages in its place."
ReplyDeleteBingo. He never actually exegeted the passage under dispute. All he did was run off to favorite proof-texts and said, "See my proof-texts; therefore, 2 Samuel 24 can't mean that."
slw
ReplyDeletecreepy, Stephen King? Nope.
You, creepy.
At least Stephen King is not living in denial of the evil you argue against.