tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7345027638551567747..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Les Fleurs du malRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12472440124499727532019-01-26T09:46:07.987-05:002019-01-26T09:46:07.987-05:00Suppose someone is miraculously healed in answer t...Suppose someone is miraculously healed in answer to prayer. Let' say they had terminal cancer. God predestined their cancer, God predestined the prayer for healing, God predestined the healing in answer to prayer.<br /><br />That, however, isn't simply to undo what he did, as if we're back to square one, before the patient had cancer. For the experience of undergoing cancer, the reaction of his loved ones, and the subsequent healing, have many benefits. They underscore the brevity and fragility of life. Take nothing for granted. Make the most of each day. They deepen the emotional bond between the patient and his loved ones. They create a Godward emphasis. And the healing is a witness to God's existence and benevolence.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86628942736493200842019-01-22T20:52:41.810-05:002019-01-22T20:52:41.810-05:00If you do not post my comment Sir could you please...If you do not post my comment Sir could you please answer me directly at rayklosski@gmail.com I will not make it public. I just want to understand. I know there is something I must be missing and I am not looking for a debate. Your answer will be final and I will not respond.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14596030516586737776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33949969056027404042019-01-22T20:51:01.816-05:002019-01-22T20:51:01.816-05:00I like the article so much. I had to read it twice...I like the article so much. I had to read it twice I must admit. Flowers at this very time is making this very argument again <br /><br />I would like to ask one question about an assertion you made in the the last paragraph that Flowers would say that you just proved his point (I think). You said and I quote: "If God hadn't restrained Abimelech,then Abimelech would act on his impulses." <br /><br />Flowers (I think) would say, "The impulses of Abimelech were also decreed by God and preordained by His Sovereignty also." Something to that extent to the degree he understands what he is talking about.<br /><br />So not only did God (according to the Christian Calvinist) from eternity Decree Abimelech's "impulses" but God also from eternity decreed the means of "deterring" Abimelech of violating Sarah by appearing in a dream Himself/God to Abimelech from following his "God decreed impulse or desire of violating Sarah. Would that be correct?<br /><br />I am not trying to be complicated Sir that I give you my word. I am a Calvinist and adhere strongly to the Doctrines of Grace. But I am just a layman trying to understand better. Flowers is causing a lot of confusion and even division within the Body of Christ.<br /><br />Then you said this Sir: "4. No, God isn't restraining something he previously determined. Restraint is part of what he determined all along. God has a variety of means to realize his plan."<br /><br />Does God actually from all eternity "decree to restrain" (impulses and desires) that were not decreed from eternity? I know I am probably confused. So I guess I am just asking. <br /><br />I am not absolutely sure that it was completely the dream in and of itself that kept Ambimelech from violating Sarah. God seems to say within the dream when He speaks directly to Ambilmelch. That He had been keeping Ambilmelch by His Restraining Power and Hand from violating Sarah. Once again I could be wrong but the dream seems to be a warning to return Sarah for she is another man's wife and to have Abraham pray for you that you and yours will live. No doubt the dream ended any event of King Abimelech violating Sarah.<br /><br />Genesis 20:6 Then God said to him in the dream, ‘Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now then, return the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours.’<br /><br />Thanks and God Bless.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14596030516586737776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1001361729790422292018-08-06T16:28:01.711-04:002018-08-06T16:28:01.711-04:00"When we object to the concept of divine dete..."When we object to the concept of divine determinism and you appeal to the crucifixion as your proof that God brings about all moral evil, are you saying that God is sovereignly working so as to redeem the very sins He sovereignly worked to bring about?"<br /><br />Problem # 1: what does he mean by "sovereignly worked" and why does Flowers assert that how God works to redeem sins is equivalent to how God works to bring about the events of history? He is equivocating here.<br /><br />"Is Calvary just about God cleaning up His own mess — redeeming His own determinations?"<br /><br />And this is prejudicial. Why not instead ask: "Is this God crowning His achievement--demonstrating the intent of all He has done?"<br /><br />"Proof that the police department worked in secretive ways to hide their identities, use evil intentions, and work out the circumstances in such a way that the drug dealer would do what they wanted him to do (sell drugs) at that particular moment in time does not suggest that the police are in anyway responsible for all that drug dealer has done or ever will do."<br /><br />Flowers apparently forgets that EVEN WHEN the police did all that, the drug dealer is still responsible for selling the drugs. So, um, why the complaint? Couldn't God arrange everything like that and be morally justified?<br /><br />Secondly, Flowers is again equivocating on what the term "responsible" means here. Many different people can be responsible for actions that occur; that doesn't mean each person shares the same culpability. After all, the drug dealer's parents are responsible for the drug dealer being born, and for how the drug dealer was raised, and so on. Do they share the same culpability as the drug dealer? The police are responsible for providing the means and opportunity for the drug dealer to sell the drugs; do they share the same culpability? And so on.<br /><br />"We celebrate and reward the actions of this police department because they are working to stop the drug activity, not because they are secretly causing all of it so as to stop some of it."<br /><br />In other words, you praise the police for having a sufficiently good reason to do what they do. Well, guess what....<br /><br />"But the reason such passages stand out so distinctly from the rest of scripture is because of their uniqueness."<br /><br />Flowers clearly hasn't read much of Scripture if he finds these standing out as unique in some way. Job 42:11, Psalm 105:25, and Deuteronomy 2:30 are just some immediate ones that come to mind. I mean, those three added to his five are already eight separate passages dealing with this topic, not to mention Steve's use of Genesis 20 as well, and it's intentionally overlooking verses like Proverbs 21:1, or Psalm 33:10-11, or Deuteronomy 32:39, and the countless similar passages like that which show God's sovereignty over all things, which would include even the evil intentions of others.<br /><br />How many verse talk about free will again?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.com