Dr. Leighton Flowers walks through the opening statement from Doug Wilson from a recent debate with Dr. Kurt Jaros, which can be seen here: • Dr. Kurt Jaros Vs Doug...
I find it interesting that Joseph doesn't blame God for the evil his brothers desired to do to him; he blames them. And the glory he gives to God for the good that God brought forth despite their evil intentions. So why is it necessary to draw such a conclusion that God must have caused the evil acts the brothers did when the text doesn't offer such an explanation nor did Joseph even suggest it? Wilson wouldn't have drawn that conclusion except his philosophy allows him to go beyond scripture, yet adds NOTHING of value to it.
Wilson does not draw the conclusion that God sins. He suggests God had a divine purpose in Joseph's brothers sinning. God creates man in all the needed conditions and they sin. All this is established in God's decree but God is not actively causing people to sin. Wilson does not think God is tempting people though we know from scripture he hardens hearts sometimes. I have followed wilson so I have a decent understanding of where he stands.
@@austinmoore4617 "Wilson does not draw the conclusion that God sins." That is not actually Robin's question. His question recognizes the logical entailment of god as the author of sin and evil - as a logical consequence of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism). Of course Wilson is not going to say god sins. There are many Calvinists who - in direct opposition to Calvin himself - refuse to call Calvin's god the author if evil. Robin's question recognizes that if the whole thing is 100% supernaturally meticulously choreographed and scripted to infallibly occur - and people function as nothing more than "instruments" as Wilson acknowledges - then people simply function like toy solders being moved around - and treated as-if they were moving themselves.
Excellent point Robin! But they do so IMPLICITLY. Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely - in his book "A closer look at Calvinism" calls this the -quote "Calvinist rocking horse". They affirm the doctrine one minute. And then spend the next 99 minutes IMPLICITLY denying that very doctrine. The Calvinist trick of denying one's own belief system - requires highly subtle DOUBLE-SPEAK in order to keep from getting caught.
My calvinist family members have told me that God decrees evil for His glory … I think calvinists are confused… God ALLOWS things (including evil)to happen to us, but He doesn’t decree it! Please help me pray for these family members who are misinterpreting bible verses through calvinist lenses😔 thank you 🙏🏻
I can't understand how any Christian couldn't see what Calvinism is. Why do they think God would get glory from sin that he caused. He needs to cause people to sin so that he can be glorified. Who could believe this. I always wondered why some atheists said that Satan and God are the same person. Now I see where they get it. Atheists think all Christians believe this way. No wonder they don't get saved
“The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.” Proverbs 16:4 “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:18-24
Imagine a young man who is struck by a magical bolt of lighting that grants him superpowers, or to be specific, the power that anything he writes in his notebook will come to happen exactly as he scripts it to. Now imagine that upon receiving this power he sets about writing into existence a set of supervillains that then (precisely as they are scripted to) embark upon a spree of crime, raping and torturing and murdering men, women, and children, as well as many other heinous acts. Now perhaps the Author makes heroes to fight the villains in some cases and is working towards some climactic battle of good and evil, but that is entirely beside the point, what is in focus here is that the Author created these villains, and in great detail wrote out their every act of evil, the horrible torturous acts that they committed on the public. Now of course the Police would fight back, but the outcome of any such endeavour would be rendered impotent by the pen of the Author who would straightway script out the fight having the villains escape or whatnot. However, let us suppose that the Author's notebook runs out of pages, and he can no longer make the villains win every encounter, so they are eventually brought to justice ... do you suppose that during the trial, if it was uncovered that the villains were in fact characters created by the Author and that their every thought, word, and action was carried out precisely as they were scripted to by the Author, that anyone in their right mind would hold those characters responsible for the evils that they had done? No! The police would straightway hunt down the Author and apprehend him, and if that Author, as he sat on trial tried to declare his innocence, protesting that it was not he that raped those children, or tortured those women, or murdered those men, but the characters that he had created, what kind Judge or Jury would even contemplate acquitting him?! Certainly not a just Judge, nor a Jury of sound mind! The Author would (rightly) be found guilty for every single evil action that he caused the characters to commit, and they would be found guiltless, even if they "wanted" to do the evil, or "enjoyed" it, because those very desires and pleasures did not originate in them, but were written into them by the Author. They are his sins, not theirs.
Reminds me of an episode of white collar where a criminal psychiatrist uses the suppressed desires of ex convicts to commit crimes for her by hypnotizing/drugging them. In the end, the convicts were acquitted even though they were the ones physically breaking the laws.
@@MainframeSupertasker why would you say that? That is a strawman put on the calvinist. I have never heard calvinism articulated like by any calvinist. Please try to show more grace when commenting. I enjoy thoughtful discussion with people on here but a starman gets people no where.
@@thevoiceofonecallingout I would say it means to appoint or decree before hand. I will post a quote by Louis Berkhof that articulates my understanding pretty well.
Scripture says that “in the fullness of time Christ was born” . In other words, everything was in place . Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and so on. All were there for God’s plan to be completed. He foresaw all the events to come together in His perfect plan!! WITHOUT DECREEING IT TO HAPPEN!!! You have to have a very low view of God to think otherwise, actually a blasphemous view of God’s HOLY nature.
@@skyred2 Did God create evil? No, God said His creation was good, isnt evil the absence of good ? He allows evil to exist, how could a Holy God " create" evil.
I am a Provisionist but I have to say that Doug Wilson conducted himself in a manner that is very Christlike. He is a much better ambassador for Calvinism than James White.
I personally believe that God is soo Sovereign that HE could allow or permit satan , the world and the flesh to sin and still achieve HIS perfect will ... satan and all the fallen angels and all of fallen humanity together couldn’t stop Rev 21 from happening 🙌🏾
The power of moral free choice entails the ability either to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it . The latter is called evil . It is good to be free , but freedom makes evil possible . Free will is good in itself , but entailed in that good is the ability to choose the opposite of good , which then makes evil possible. If God made free creatures, and if it is good to be free , then the origin of evil is the misuse of freedom .... Dr Norman Giesler 👍🏾
God is permissive.fortunately he holds back the full evil we enact on our selves by revolting and running society according to what we deem as right and wrong, good and bad. God will not always hold back the full force of Evil some day. If we continue to ignore God God will eventually leave us to our own devices. Bad and evil can cause good from it.
“The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; he that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, and that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife, hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, that hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, that hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ezekiel 18:1-32 KJV
Well even God said He didn't decree this - 'And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I DID NOT COMMAND, nor did it come into My heart. (Jeremiah 7:31, NKJV)'
These verses in Jeremiah indicated that God did not determine that the Israelite's were sacrificing their children on the arms of steel statue of Moloch. 30 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. 32 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 33 Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 34 I will bring an end to the sounds of joy and gladness and to the voices of bride and bridegroom in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, for the land will become desolate. The gods that decree everything are the Greek gods of Augustine and Calvin and the Gnostics.
Calvinist god is truly evil, best to stick with what the bible actually teaches ... that God is Holy and righteous, and there is no shadow or turning or evil in Him.
God's glory comes from what Tolkien calls "eucatastrophe." There are times when it looks like evil has completely triumphed and there is no strength by human goodness capable of undoing it, and there is no escape to be expected ever. "But God...." At that point, God intervenes and evil is completely defeated and undone. And this is what brings glory to God. Not manipulating feeble and mortal men in any way. Everyone acts freely, and in spite of all opposition, God's will is done and evil is done away with.
True free will individuals by definition have to have the ability to choose the complete spectrum of choices “good and evil”, obedience or disobedience, submission or rebellion. Angels evidently had complete free will. Lucifer from His own self, discover pride, rebellion, sin.
Just because “knows” the future, does not mean God”makes” the future. Because God has the power to know the future, doesn’t mean by necessity that He therefore determines man’s actions.
Maybe what is missed in this conversation is this, yes it was evil that men crucified Christ but it also was the very best thing that happened for the whole world and deeply shows us God's love for all people.
tell me what calvinist says this? This is not a position of calvinism for sure. Perhaps a confused hyper calvinist but again that is not the position of calvinism.
@@jennyjohnson1930 Good point. The logical conclusion of hyper Calvinism is actually not far removed from that of Satan's whereby they say we don't have the ability to choose to repent.
@@austinmoore4617 What is logically TRUE within a belief system is not necessarily acknowledged by all holders of that belief system. Denial is a part of the human condition.
@@dw6528 we can agree to disagree on the logic of Calvinism. I see it in scripture and I’m willing to accept because of that. I will not change my interpretation of scripture simply because an inability to logically reconcile divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I do not logically understand the trinity but I accept it because I see scripture teaches it.
Brother Leighton, thank you for your work. It is very helpful. Could you do a video on molinism and the differences between that and provisionism and why you differ. Thanks
Question ; is it fair to deduce from the scriptures that God has a Sovereign will which encompasses a permissive will , meaning it’s not HIS desire that men sin or specifically that Adam would sin but allowed it because there is a bigger picture or a greater love story being told or played out in our space and time continuum ? Permissive will = sins that’s outside of the perfect will of God but God allows or permits
If I build (author) a Reuberg contraption to physically protect my house (this now a real-world version of authoring), and a criminal is killed by it, aren't I as the "author" culpable of his death? US law says I am.
Finally, Leighton Flowers you have a good argument to push back on this "Shakespeare analogy." It's a categorical difference to use a fictional book written by an author to describe how God has scripted everything without culpability between how God can script everything to include himself, since he interacts with the characters in the script as their creator. Big difference. However, if you think about it, the Gnostics just fixed the problem with two gods when they read our scripture, with a god being scripted and the more powerful one doing the scripting.
@@ShepherdMinistry Can you tell me how we know what God has decreed, except by scripture? Just calling it His "decree" because it happens is just writing your assumptions into it. It inserts a whole explanation that just isn't in the Bible.
@@lindajohnson4204 you ignore my question to ask your own? Ok. Anything that happens had to be decreed by God. To say otherwise is to say things happen out of Gods control.
The same arguments that atheists and "gnostic maltheists" make against God, he makes "for" God. That's the same tack Swayze takes on RUclips and Facebook. Not sure if Wilson is as blasphemous as he is, yet.
If evil comes from God’s good, that does not mean that God makes the evil. God made angels and it was good, He made man and it was good. God only did good. For man to be able to have his greatest being, he had to have a complete free will to choose (from a true free will) to love God. Angels evidently in the same way, had to have a complete free will. All and only God did was good. But because evil came from God’s good, does not mean that God created it. Did God know that sin and evil would come from free willed creatures? Of Course He is God He knows all things. But God’s plan was to NOT make free willed creatures. But for God to overcome evil with good. The evil that Satan created in heaven and from the sin that Adam brought into this world though his sin.
How is the Author analogy any better than the Robot analogy? And how could anyone possibly think that the characters in a story are actually making choices? They're not, they're not doing anything, they don't exist. That said, at least robots can and do actually exist. Furthermore, we are not far off from a time, when a person could make a whole cast of robots, and program them with Hamlet, and then have them perform the play ... are you telling me that the robot created to be Hamlet, and programed with all his lines and stage directions is really free? that it is making choices?! It's complete nonsense.
God is responsible for Permissiveness in the world. God gives free will. He allows us to rule society according to what we deem as right and wrong good and bad. After all that is what happened in the garden. There is a difference. If we experience the wrath of God in so doing and by events and consequences of our actions, it can be a sort of grace if we acknowledge this and turn to God and say you are Lord.
I still think that the individual people involved in Christs death had a choice. His death was predetermined, but by whose hand depended on the heart of each man.
God determined for Jesus to be crucified. Absolutely! Only a Calvinist would claim that the redemption of mankind is an "evil purpose." God's purpose was absolutely good, not evil. That good was certainly *painful* for Jesus, but surgery to remove a cancer is also painful. We don't call the surgery evil and the cancer good. Well, Calvinists might.
I saw a few comments in the live chat stating that they dont think Doug Wilson worships the same God as they do. I'm starting to think the same thing. James White's god is completely different from mine. My God doesn't decree every evil act, his does. My God is holy, theirs is a tyrannical monster.
Calvinism's 9-not 5 POINTS called TULIP- points are EASILY REFUTED from GENESIS TO REVELATION with clear language, in plain CONTEXT. From God speaking to Adam and Adam answering God, Adam being spiritually dead (separated, needing to be reconciled) in Genesis to Jews in Israel sacrificing children in the 3 Jeremiah passages- 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- where God says they did what was: 1) not commanded by Him 2) never entered His mind. Mankind born only of the Earthly Adam, until they die, since Adam, are COMMANDED to REPENT AND TURN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS! After Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Adam, was sacrificed according to God's plan, then raised from the dead on the third day, ascending to the Father and sending the Holy Spirit from the Father, God still commanding all people everywhere to repent and turn to Him, and now believe in the sacrificed Jesus the ANOINTED ONE for forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and salvation from GOD'S COMING WRATH AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT FOR SIN, being now born again. This birth now in the heavenly Adam, presently still, from time to time disobeying God and sinning even though heavenly birth and reconciliation is attained already, including being seated in the heavenlies with Christ, etc. refutes Calvinism. Calvinism's DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGN and MITICULOUS DETERMINISM teaches that God decides EVERY SINGLE thought word and action that every person will think say and do and is easily refuted by this description of mankind from GENESIS TO REVELATION, saved or unsaved, except for the practice of the life after Spiritual new birth and reconciliation. The 3 Jeremiah passages are unmitigated in refuting Calvinism's definition of SOVEREIGN and MITICULOUS DETERMINISM! Adam could not speak to God when God addressed him after he sinned, dying Spiritually if Calvinism's 9-not 5-POINTS called TULIP were true! Calvinism teaches a false gospel too, they teach that one is BORN OF THE HEAVENLY ADAM without believing in Jesus the anointed one for forgiveness of sins, this is a false gospel and the ultimate example of INCOMPETENCE. Every Calvinist elder should immediately resign!
@Sara Shepherd The law is a curse upon Israel because they put themselves under the works of the law rather than acknowledging they are sinners by the law. The law was given for the knowledge of sin. God asks us to keep His law in our hearts so that we are reminded of sin. By the law, we are able to acknowledge that we are unable to keep it perfectly and that we need grace and mercy. Proverbs 3:1 “My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:” Proverbs 4:4 “He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.” Israel MADE the law into a curse because of what they chose to do with it...they used it to puff themselves up, rather than allowing it to HUMBLE them...which is the PURPOSE of the law. There's the law of God which is good, pure, and holy. Then there are the WORKS of the law which are filthy rags. Galatians 3:10 “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” PLEASE, reconsider referring to the God of the OT as Satan. Jesus is the word of God and the OT speaks of HIM. John 5:46 “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”
Correct, Acts 4:28 was determined to happen and was Gods plan. God did in fact plan to offer up His Son as a blameless sacrifice to cover the sins of the world. God knew that these hardened Jews would reject their own messiah and bring about the redemption of the world. Very good Pastor Doug. Acts 2:23 He was delivered up by God's set plan and foreknowledge, and YOU, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
The way I see it is this. God the Father can do whatever he wants, even if to us it seems evil. Ultimately what's evil is to disobey God, to break his commandments, this doesn't apply to God because he created the commandments for us, not him, but sin does apply to Jesus because Jesus is also a man.
Hello Leighton. I absolutely agree with your position even as a five point Calvinist. I tried to share this with you before but I do take the position of RC Sproul. Never got a response back from you but there are Calvinists who hold all five points who believe that God does not decree in an active way the sins which people commit. But most Calvinist like myself, believe that God actively decrees good but passively allows evil and that in and of itself is a decree which is passive. There’s nothing that you shared that I actually disagree with other than the fact that you are trying to answer an issue which hyper Calvinist would hold to. My act to fill a glass of water halfway is active but there’s another passive act which also happens and that is the allowance that the other half of the glass remain empty. One Act but two results. This is the best way that I believe represents both positions in a balanced way. So now with this understanding we know that God is not actively involved in causing people to sin. But is always actively involved benevolently toward humans and his creation. Your thoughts in regards to how I see it and how RC Sproul sees it.
I would argue the filling of the glass has only one result because the other half was empty to begin with. The glass being empty resulted from an action of creating the glass. I’d be interested to know more about what you believe about this passive allowance of evil under calvinism. My daughter is a week old. If my wife and I remove all our provision from her, are we passively or actively harming her? I honestly am curious about your view, I’m not looking for a “gotcha” moment. I’ve always felt that this type of reasoning is akin to saying “Well sure I built the gun and created the bullet and fired the gun but the bullet freely chose to act in accordance with its nature after being fired before it struck that person, therefore the bullet alone is fully blame worthy”
@@TKK0812 Hello Keegan. Thank you for bringing this up. I’ve often wondered how to reconcile both issues between my ears. But one of the things that really caused me to understand the positive - negative or the active - passive is my understanding of what took place in the garden of Eden. I think a point that’s often overlooked is the law in relation to sin. We know that Paul states that apart from the law there is no sin. In fact it is The law that stirs up sin within us. So if we look at God planting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden we know that God did it intentionally knowing that Adam would partake if it’s fruit. Up until then there was no law of negation. All of the laws that were given to Adam and Eve were positive laws. One being, “be fruitful and multiply”. But it’s not until we come to the scene where God tells Adam that of all the trees in the garden Adam and Eve would be allowed to partake but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this they were not allowed to partake. Because on the day they eat of its fruit they shall surely die. You and I know what that means. This law of negation stirred within Adam that desire to partake and when he did he did understand what he didn’t understand before - the difference between good and evil. Leighton uses the example of the sting operation. This does not necessarily mean that a particular agency of government is coercing actively a person to violate the law. In regards to the glass half filled. I look at the state of humanity as it is when sin passed from one man to all men. This is the state of the glass being empty. But God choosing actively out of a fallen race of humanity (the glass that is empty) to be his own has also passively allowed others to continue to their own destruction. I believe that God’s decrees are active and are good but what man has done to himself are done by himself and could never blame God for doing those things. God does not cause men to sin. I also believe that God allowing us to have free will within the parameters of our physical nature and our spiritual nature is a bigger God than a God who has to have everything in his active control. In other words, a God who allows us freedom of choice and yet is able to maintain control, is in greater control despite our choices. I know that my belief is different than some of my Calvinist counterparts but I do hold to an understanding that RC Sproul and my old pastor John MacArthur hold. Blessings to you and yours always. Walter
It is not a decree of God to passively allow evil unless you are using a different definition for decree or ordain. Please define the word decree as you use it. The problem is evil is NOT a decree of God based on the definition of the word. This is usually explained through multiple wills of God but am not aware of any biblical teaching of multiple wills of God. Causality and foreknowledge are not the same.... I don't know if the glass is a good example. The only action is filling the glass; the result is a glass that is now half full (cause and effect affirmed through scripture). Your argument seems parallel to arguing a scenario where one man kills another man and both are responsible; the murderer for pulling the trigger, and the victim because he was passively in the way of the bullet.
@@thevoiceofonecallingout You may be right in regards to God’s decree. But I thought that I was fairly clear in my response to Keegan that God’s decree was his positive action. Since you used the word causality I would say then by default there was a causality that God did not have to necessarily be actively involved in. I still don’t understand why you feel that my illustration was non-Sequitur. It is an illustration of oh I see humanity as being fallen and judged already. By default we are fallen creatures in need of a Savior but God rich in mercy has decreed some to be his own. By God’s one act of graciousness there were two causes that resulted. If he did not act graciously then there would be only one cause and that would be damnation for all of humanity. What God desires to do he does. The difference in the words Thelo and boulomai in the Greek. God‘s sovereign will as opposed to his desirous will. There are multiple wills of God I am supposing that maybe you support Leighton’s position. I can shared earlier, I don’t have a problem with how Leighton see’s how we interact on a temporal point of reference. We who are evil can do good and what we experience through our senses are picked up by sight sound experiences etc.… But there are things that are vertical not necessarily horizontal in relation to what we cannot see or necessarily sense. I cannot see the spirit as Christ says no one knows where the wind goes or where it comes from so it is with the spirit. There is an action that God takes which we don’t necessarily see but feeling it from an earthly point of reference I can understand how Leighton comes to his conclusions. I agree with what he is saying according to this presentation of his. And I am a five point Calvinist. I don’t think that there necessarily Hass to be a disagreement on what he had brought up In this presentation. Now on other presentations I disagree with many of his points.
@@walterrobertson3265 I was only addressing this presentation. I did change non-sequitur because it was too harsh. What I understood you to say is that there are two actions, active and passive in the filling of the glass. I see it as one active action (cause) with resultant effect. The problem (not you specifically) is that "we" throw around decree and ordain and the definitions I have seen lead to a specifically initiated outcome. That does make God responsible for evil since he ordered or decreed it. But to me that is neither consistent with God's character nor what scripture teaches. Indeed God spent much of the OT warning men not to do what is wrong. For example I do not believe God decreed (ordered) Adam to sin because God warned Adam not to do it. Did God know Adam would sin? Yes. Did God order or decree Adam to sin? No. To do so would make God deceitful and that is not God. God earnestly desired Adam not to sin and even warned Adam even though God knew that Adam would sin and planned for that failure in advance. So I think we agree that God does not, through His positive action, commit men to sin. Now I assume we both believe God allows men to sin. But He does not desire it for God tells us what His desire is; that is we not sin. IMHO the problem with all these arguments is they dismiss the implications of interactions that occur between an omniscient and omnipotent being and we limited human beings. For example God earnestly desired Adam to obey and dealt with him as a being who had the ability to choose. He did not show up to Adam and say "well you shouldn't sin but I know you are going to so just do what you are going to do". Finally I am not sure the two Greek words you mention reflect two different things but maybe need to do a little research; for example Paul willed (boulomai) Onesimus to remain with him. There are other examples as well. God had a purpose for the Israelites to share the gospel but they refused. Men refuse to do the will of God. Because of God's knowledge he can sidestep or circumvent failures of men if it affects something he purposes to happen. Our salvation was of critical importance to God and nothing was going to circumvent that. The sharing of the gospel by the Jews was also purposed but did not occur and in rejecting God, he blinded them and gave the gospel to a people who would produce its fruit. In any event we probably are closer to the same position on this topic than the many words suggest. All God's best to you and yours.
To me Doug Wilson's analogy is like using Lazarus as someone totally dead as their example you can't use the crucifixion of Christ as an example mens sin it's actually disgusting.
@@austinmoore4617 Just because someone has foreknowledge of something doesn't mean that person necessarily ordained it. After I have watched a movie I would have foreknowledge of the ending for someone else who has just started to watch it in another session, and I can tell that person what the ending will be. That doesn't mean I ordained the movie to end the way it did.
@@xenofonz7640 I understand your view. I was trying to explain to @heavenguy that calvinists believe that foreordination establishes his foreknowledge. Your example of you watching a movie is an example of knowledge obtained and looking back. I don't think God merely saw what would happen apart from ordaining history. I don't believe God learned what people would decide.
When Calvinists argue that since God determined one evil event(the crucifixion), then this means that God can determine all evil without being implicated in evil, they are just asserting this. If it's even possible that God can determine an event to happen through using the libertarianly free choices of human beings, then God isn't culpable since it's the humans who are making the choices. Also, just because God determines to sacrifice Himself, it doesnt necessarily follow that God can determine a human's sinful choice and not be culpable. It's easy to see why God wouldnt be culpable for sacrificing Himself if one realizes that God didnt causally determine the choices of the agents involved, but if God did causally determine the agents choices then it seems that He would surely be culpable for that. Pure Goodness and Holiness wouldn't do something like that.
Again we need to be careful that a specific example in scripture is generalized to all scripture. I think we can agree that Acts 2 is a specific example related to something that God was going to bring to pass for the good of all mankind yet even in this, foreknowledge is explicitly stated. Yes the act was evil and yet God could have stopped them but that does not mean He ordered (or decreed) the evil act. He simply leveraged what He knew would happen.
@@CBALLEN I don't think that is true UNLESS you believe God to be a liar. For God tells us what His will is but then watches it not be done. So if we claim that God is telling us that He wants X and then Y happens and Y is really His will, then He is not being honest and we know God is honest.
@@CBALLENI can do better than that. He knew they couldn't. BUT that does not mean that they are not to be committed to them and to try. This is emphasized throughout the NT as well. So that does not line up with my example. For it to align with what i told you it would have to be that God told us he wanted us to obey the 10 commandments when he really didn't.
They would deny believing this, but if you follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion, then that is, in fact, exactly what they believe! The "god" of Calvinism is morally indistinguishable from the devil, differing only in name, level of power, and authority. In short, the "god" of Calvinism is what the devil was trying to become by rebelling against God in the first place!
No, Leighton. He DOES intend to use doublespeak. Calvinists use mental and linguistic gymnastics to confuse the listener. It is deliberate. Calvinists WANT God to be evil. That's why so many prominent Calvinists, when they discover that their theology of an evil God is a lie, become atheists. God wasn't evil enough for them.
Does man have the ability to change or alter God’s decree or prophecy using man’s supposed Freewill? If the answer is yes man CAN alter God’s prophecy or decree then man has become God! This LIE goes all the way back to Eve in the Garden .
The word "decree" does NOT mean to allow something. When a king issues a decree it is not an allowance; it is a demand. God does not decree evil. The "god" of Calvinism DOES decree evil. Calvinists don't worship God; Calvinists worship Satan and call the devil "God." They take all Scripture out of context -- like their father the devil -- in order to force the text to deny God's character...something they apparently don't know at all.
Absolute sovereignty but with limits. Contradiction? God is sovereign in everything and can do anything, does that mean He will? No, because his holy nature does not allow it. God can lie and do malicious acts but his holy nature does not allow it. Every act "bad" or "creator of some evil" that God is seen to do is for two reasons: 1) Just punishment or 2) With a good purpose behind. The "bad" act of God can never be without a good purpose, God cannot perform evil acts despite being sovereign because his nature does not allow it, since if he would do so it would be to instill part of the evil in God. One cannot make up things in ambiguous verses and mix up the sovereignty of God by saying that he can do any act he wants, there are acts that he will never do because he is holy. SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE LIMITS OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES. When one does not understand the purposes and thoughts of God, he should say "I don't know about this" and not invent things to suit the champions of the doctrine of other religions. The criterion of interpretation here must be by dismissal, God cannot perform evil acts simply by "being sovereign", his nature does not allow it, as he cannot lie although he can do it because he is sovereignbut he will not do that because he is Holy and if he will lie we would be saying there is darkness in God (Hebrews 6:18). When you say that God can do evil, you are attributing evil to him, which is incompatible in nature, in the same way you could say that he can lie because he is so sovereign, which he can do, but HE WILL NEVER DO IT. CAUSE OF YOUR NATURE (hebrews 6:18), What is the difference between doing a wrong act and lying? They are both bad. When God "does a bad act" it is by punishment or with a purpose behind, he can never do a bad act in himself, his nature does not allow it.
God absolutely cannot lie or do evil my brother this is not the definition of sovereignty james tells you God cannot be tempted by evil or tempt anyone gods sovereignty has nothing to do with his ability to do evil but his absolutely power and authority and infinite wisdom over all things therefore his sovereignty is without limits GOD CANNOT LIE OR DO EVIL ACTS AND HE CANNOT WANT TO HE CANNOT DO IT IF HE WANTS HE COULD NEVER WANT TO DO THIS THIS IS A IMPOSSIBILITY IF HE COULD LIE HE WOULD NOT BE GOD GOD CANNOT CHOOSE TO LIE OR DO EVIL
Let me put this another way my brother with all due respect and peace to you it is not true that God could lie or do evil but his holiness keeps him from this evil act the problem is when you say "GOD COULD LIE OR DO EVIL"BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES KEEP HIM FROM THIS. on the contrary Gods other attributes does not keep God from lying or doing other evil acts if God wanted to commit evil acts God cannot commit evil acts and could never want to this is something you can attribute to a human being who can be tempted by evil yet refrain from the evil acts God is not human
Sam Logosz okay the level is certain, what level is it? All the time, some of the time, when we choose, none of time, all the time expect when god expressly says he did t do it (reminder... god is not an author of confusion so I. Sure you can give a certain answer)
I knew beforehand that this Calvinist would lie. That doesn't mean that I foreknew it from before the foundation of the earth. The account of Joseph and his brothers is a perfect example. The brothers determined to sell their brother into slavery SO THAT evil would befall him. God determined that being sold into slavery would lead to good befalling him, SO THAT Israel would be saved. Only a Calvinist would claim that God wanting good to befall Joseph is evil. Only a Calvinist would claim that saving Israel is evil.
Calvin's god creates people to function as "Instruments" Composing and producing every note that will play within the human brain - like he's playing a piano. But just wait - until that music is something the Calvinist doesn't like. Suddenly Calvin's god isn't the one playing it! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi So now we have - Psychological Projection which is not in scripture - and Tourretes which is! And any suggestion that a Calvinist at least try to be consistent with his own belief system is perceived as folly in the Calvinist's brain! What a hoot!! ;-D Calvinists always provide the most wonderful examples of DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Then it logically follows - the same would be true for you of course. Unless the tune Calvin's god composes and produces in your brain is different? I wonder why Calvin's god composes and produces the "I make my instrument reject me" tune? Perhaps he is expressing self-loathing?
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Calvin's god doesn't exist - yet non-Calvinist god does? I certainly appreciate the continued examples of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Wonderful! Its hilarious to watch Calvinists do exactly what I already know they will. In this case - per my first statement: -quote But just wait - until that music is something the Calvinist doesn't like. Suddenly Calvin's god isn't the one playing it! Thank you for another example of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK. :-]
Interesting. The stone of stumbling is Jesus. Whoever believes in him wont stumble. Peter 2:6. Jesus=stumbling block. PETER 2:6 "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined/appointed to do." Peter 2:7 (They stumble on Jesus because they disobey, as they were destined to.) YOUR premise: They were appointed/destined to stumble on Jesus for being disobedient. Doug's premise: They were appointed/destined to be disobedient which causes them to stumble on Jesus. My 2 cents: Could both be true, could it imply both? Could they be both: destined to disobey and destined to stumble for being disobedient? It could. The probability of your premise/claim being the only true premise/claim is very low because as shown in the example above (in my 2 cents) your claim does not negate the existence of Doug's claim .
I find it interesting that Joseph doesn't blame God for the evil his brothers desired to do to him; he blames them. And the glory he gives to God for the good that God brought forth despite their evil intentions. So why is it necessary to draw such a conclusion that God must have caused the evil acts the brothers did when the text doesn't offer such an explanation nor did Joseph even suggest it? Wilson wouldn't have drawn that conclusion except his philosophy allows him to go beyond scripture, yet adds NOTHING of value to it.
Wilson does not draw the conclusion that God sins. He suggests God had a divine purpose in Joseph's brothers sinning. God creates man in all the needed conditions and they sin. All this is established in God's decree but God is not actively causing people to sin. Wilson does not think God is tempting people though we know from scripture he hardens hearts sometimes. I have followed wilson so I have a decent understanding of where he stands.
@@austinmoore4617 what you are describing is not Calvinism. Using evil for good is not the same as decreeing evil.
@@austinmoore4617 "Wilson does not draw the conclusion that God sins."
That is not actually Robin's question. His question recognizes the logical entailment of god as the author of sin and evil - as a logical consequence of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism). Of course Wilson is not going to say god sins. There are many Calvinists who - in direct opposition to Calvin himself - refuse to call Calvin's god the author if evil. Robin's question recognizes that if the whole thing is 100% supernaturally meticulously choreographed and scripted to infallibly occur - and people function as nothing more than "instruments" as Wilson acknowledges - then people simply function like toy solders being moved around - and treated as-if they were moving themselves.
Excellent point Robin! But they do so IMPLICITLY. Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely - in his book "A closer look at Calvinism" calls this the -quote "Calvinist rocking horse".
They affirm the doctrine one minute. And then spend the next 99 minutes IMPLICITLY denying that very doctrine. The Calvinist trick of denying one's own belief system - requires highly subtle DOUBLE-SPEAK in order to keep from getting caught.
Robin Q yes the whole point is to give glory to god for using tpTHEKR evil for good. NOT his evil
My calvinist family members have told me that God decrees evil for His glory … I think calvinists are confused… God ALLOWS things (including evil)to happen to us, but He doesn’t decree it! Please help me pray for these family members who are misinterpreting bible verses through calvinist lenses😔 thank you 🙏🏻
I can't understand how any Christian couldn't see what Calvinism is. Why do they think God would get glory from sin that he caused. He needs to cause people to sin so that he can be glorified. Who could believe this. I always wondered why some atheists said that Satan and God are the same person. Now I see where they get it. Atheists think all Christians believe this way. No wonder they don't get saved
“The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”
Proverbs 16:4
“Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
Romans 9:18-24
Imagine a young man who is struck by a magical bolt of lighting that grants him superpowers, or to be specific, the power that anything he writes in his notebook will come to happen exactly as he scripts it to.
Now imagine that upon receiving this power he sets about writing into existence a set of supervillains that then (precisely as they are scripted to) embark upon a spree of crime, raping and torturing and murdering men, women, and children, as well as many other heinous acts.
Now perhaps the Author makes heroes to fight the villains in some cases and is working towards some climactic battle of good and evil, but that is entirely beside the point, what is in focus here is that the Author created these villains, and in great detail wrote out their every act of evil, the horrible torturous acts that they committed on the public.
Now of course the Police would fight back, but the outcome of any such endeavour would be rendered impotent by the pen of the Author who would straightway script out the fight having the villains escape or whatnot. However, let us suppose that the Author's notebook runs out of pages, and he can no longer make the villains win every encounter, so they are eventually brought to justice ... do you suppose that during the trial, if it was uncovered that the villains were in fact characters created by the Author and that their every thought, word, and action was carried out precisely as they were scripted to by the Author, that anyone in their right mind would hold those characters responsible for the evils that they had done?
No! The police would straightway hunt down the Author and apprehend him, and if that Author, as he sat on trial tried to declare his innocence, protesting that it was not he that raped those children, or tortured those women, or murdered those men, but the characters that he had created, what kind Judge or Jury would even contemplate acquitting him?! Certainly not a just Judge, nor a Jury of sound mind!
The Author would (rightly) be found guilty for every single evil action that he caused the characters to commit, and they would be found guiltless, even if they "wanted" to do the evil, or "enjoyed" it, because those very desires and pleasures did not originate in them, but were written into them by the Author. They are his sins, not theirs.
Reminds me of an episode of white collar where a criminal psychiatrist uses the suppressed desires of ex convicts to commit crimes for her by hypnotizing/drugging them.
In the end, the convicts were acquitted even though they were the ones physically breaking the laws.
This is an awesome analogy. I have made similar ones before, but not as good as this I don't think
For those who try and throw shade at Leighton for his analogies remember jesus was an analogy master... be better!
How do mean "be better"?
Right his analogies could be much better.
@@tsebosei1285 we have a responsibility to be better, we are responsible for our words and actions.
It's their lame attempt to silence Flowers, because their arguments aren't strong enough to refute his.
@@ministryoftruth1451, yet you don't seem to have one. Interesting.
If it weren't for logical fallacies, Calvinists wouldn't have any logic at all.
If God is authoring our sinful actions...Satan is a useless being.
Is Satan independent from God? Is he not subservient to God?
If EDD is true, if all evil deeds thoughts and intentions were decreed by God, then whose sins did Jesus die for?!
The sins of humanity of course or the church if you believe in particular redemption. God ordaining sin is not him sinning. The sinner sins.
Jesus died for God's sins.......... oops?
@@MainframeSupertasker why would you say that? That is a strawman put on the calvinist. I have never heard calvinism articulated like by any calvinist. Please try to show more grace when commenting. I enjoy thoughtful discussion with people on here but a starman gets people no where.
@@austinmoore4617 What does the word ordaining mean when you say this?
@@thevoiceofonecallingout I would say it means to appoint or decree before hand. I will post a quote by Louis Berkhof that articulates my understanding pretty well.
Scripture says that “in the fullness of time Christ was born” . In other words, everything was in place . Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and so on. All were there for God’s plan to be completed. He foresaw all the events to come together in His perfect plan!! WITHOUT DECREEING IT TO HAPPEN!!! You have to have a very low view of God to think otherwise, actually a blasphemous view of God’s HOLY nature.
Any Calvinist that says God created evil is a false teacher, the Bible states that God is NOT the author of evil.
I think you should clarify your comment, I was created by God and very capable of evil.
@@skyred2 Did God create evil? No, God said His creation was good, isnt evil the absence of good ? He allows evil to exist, how could a Holy God " create" evil.
Larry Oxentine not the author of confusion . Doesn’t tempt any many. Then claims to ordain chaos. And entice the prophets into false prophecy. Yikes
Then, who is the author of evil?
@@ryleighloughty3307 We are
I am a Provisionist but I have to say that Doug Wilson conducted himself in a manner that is very Christlike. He is a much better ambassador for Calvinism than James White.
I totally agree...
Also agreed.
Douglas Wilson has written many articles critiquing feminism where he discusses the female author’s breast size. He is an absolute creep.
@@LoneWolfRanging you don’t know Doug Wilson.
@@franciscusgomarus5086, you interpret the entire Bible according to the book of Romans? Where did you learn your hermeneutics?
I personally believe that God is soo Sovereign that HE could allow or permit satan , the world and the flesh to sin and still achieve HIS perfect will ... satan and all the fallen angels and all of fallen humanity together couldn’t stop Rev 21 from happening 🙌🏾
The power of moral free choice entails the ability either to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it . The latter is called evil . It is good to be free , but freedom makes evil possible . Free will is good in itself , but entailed in that good is the ability to choose the opposite of good , which then makes evil possible. If God made free creatures, and if it is good to be free , then the origin of evil is the misuse of freedom .... Dr Norman Giesler 👍🏾
God is permissive.fortunately he holds back the full evil we enact on our selves by revolting and running society according to what we deem as right and wrong, good and bad.
God will not always hold back the full force of Evil some day.
If we continue to ignore God God will eventually leave us to our own devices.
Bad and evil can cause good from it.
@@j316slaveofchrist6 True
“The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; he that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, and that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife, hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, that hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, that hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ezekiel 18:1-32 KJV
Well even God said He didn't decree this - 'And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I DID NOT COMMAND, nor did it come into My heart. (Jeremiah 7:31, NKJV)'
These verses in Jeremiah indicated that God did not determine that the Israelite's were sacrificing their children on the arms of steel statue of Moloch.
30 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. 32 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 33 Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 34 I will bring an end to the sounds of joy and gladness and to the voices of bride and bridegroom in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, for the land will become desolate.
The gods that decree everything are the Greek gods of Augustine and Calvin and the Gnostics.
Calvinist god is truly evil, best to stick with what the bible actually teaches ... that God is Holy and righteous, and there is no shadow or turning or evil in Him.
God's glory comes from what Tolkien calls "eucatastrophe." There are times when it looks like evil has completely triumphed and there is no strength by human goodness capable of undoing it, and there is no escape to be expected ever.
"But God...." At that point, God intervenes and evil is completely defeated and undone. And this is what brings glory to God. Not manipulating feeble and mortal men in any way. Everyone acts freely, and in spite of all opposition, God's will is done and evil is done away with.
I think SOME, not all! Calvanist are calvanist because it "justifies" their own sin. Basically it comes down to "God made me do it."
You, sir, do not understand Calvinism.
Unless they even have a different meaning for the word decree, if they believe God has decreed all evil, they are not saved.
True free will individuals by definition have to have the ability to choose the complete spectrum of choices “good and evil”, obedience or disobedience, submission or rebellion. Angels evidently had complete free will. Lucifer from His own self, discover pride, rebellion, sin.
Sounds like autonomy.
Just because “knows” the future, does not mean God”makes” the future. Because God has the power to know the future, doesn’t mean by necessity that He therefore determines man’s actions.
Maybe what is missed in this conversation is this, yes it was evil that men crucified Christ but it also was the very best thing that happened for the whole world and deeply shows us God's love for all people.
What do Calvinists and leftists have in common; it’s not my fault!
tell me what calvinist says this? This is not a position of calvinism for sure. Perhaps a confused hyper calvinist but again that is not the position of calvinism.
@@austinmoore4617 I praise God for all the Calvinists that don’t take their theology to its logical conclusions. It will safeguard the hearts of many😁
@@jennyjohnson1930 Good point. The logical conclusion of hyper Calvinism is actually not far removed from that of Satan's whereby they say we don't have the ability to choose to repent.
@@austinmoore4617 What is logically TRUE within a belief system is not necessarily acknowledged by all holders of that belief system. Denial is a part of the human condition.
@@dw6528 we can agree to disagree on the logic of Calvinism. I see it in scripture and I’m willing to accept because of that. I will not change my interpretation of scripture simply because an inability to logically reconcile divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I do not logically understand the trinity but I accept it because I see scripture teaches it.
Brother Leighton, thank you for your work. It is very helpful. Could you do a video on molinism and the differences between that and provisionism and why you differ. Thanks
Can you tell me how we’re able to do something that goes against Gods decree?
Doug Wilson is no Christian. Christians believe in the absolute holiness of God and no Christian would ever say "God decrees evil acts".
Then who 'decrees evil acts'?
Verses about God against Evil: 22:40
Question ; is it fair to deduce from the scriptures that God has a Sovereign will which encompasses a permissive will , meaning it’s not HIS desire that men sin or specifically that Adam would sin but allowed it because there is a bigger picture or a greater love story being told or played out in our space and time continuum ?
Permissive will = sins that’s outside of the perfect will of God but God allows or permits
If I build (author) a Reuberg contraption to physically protect my house (this now a real-world version of authoring), and a criminal is killed by it, aren't I as the "author" culpable of his death? US law says I am.
Finally, Leighton Flowers you have a good argument to push back on this "Shakespeare analogy." It's a categorical difference to use a fictional book written by an author to describe how God has scripted everything without culpability between how God can script everything to include himself, since he interacts with the characters in the script as their creator. Big difference. However, if you think about it, the Gnostics just fixed the problem with two gods when they read our scripture, with a god being scripted and the more powerful one doing the scripting.
Calvinists live in fiction. I get why this analogy makes sense lol
Can you tell me how we’re able to do something that goes against Gods decree?
@@ShepherdMinistry Can you tell me how we know what God has decreed, except by scripture? Just calling it His "decree" because it happens is just writing your assumptions into it. It inserts a whole explanation that just isn't in the Bible.
@@lindajohnson4204 you ignore my question to ask your own? Ok. Anything that happens had to be decreed by God. To say otherwise is to say things happen out of Gods control.
@@lindajohnson4204 Are you saying God can not decree evil?
The same arguments that atheists and "gnostic maltheists" make against God, he makes "for" God. That's the same tack Swayze takes on RUclips and Facebook. Not sure if Wilson is as blasphemous as he is, yet.
If evil comes from God’s good, that does not mean that God makes the evil. God made angels and it was good, He made man and it was good. God only did good. For man to be able to have his greatest being, he had to have a complete free will to choose (from a true free will) to love God. Angels evidently in the same way, had to have a complete free will. All and only God did was good. But because evil came from God’s good, does not mean that God created it. Did God know that sin and evil would come from free willed creatures? Of Course He is God He knows all things. But God’s plan was to NOT make free willed creatures. But for God to overcome evil with good. The evil that Satan created in heaven and from the sin that Adam brought into this world though his sin.
How is the Author analogy any better than the Robot analogy? And how could anyone possibly think that the characters in a story are actually making choices? They're not, they're not doing anything, they don't exist.
That said, at least robots can and do actually exist. Furthermore, we are not far off from a time, when a person could make a whole cast of robots, and program them with Hamlet, and then have them perform the play ... are you telling me that the robot created to be Hamlet, and programed with all his lines and stage directions is really free? that it is making choices?!
It's complete nonsense.
God is responsible for Permissiveness in the world.
God gives free will.
He allows us to rule society according to what we deem as right and wrong good and bad. After all that is what happened in the garden.
There is a difference.
If we experience the wrath of God in so doing and by events and consequences of our actions, it can be a sort of grace if we acknowledge this and turn to God and say you are Lord.
If God does not decree all evil, then who does?
I still think that the individual people involved in Christs death had a choice. His death was predetermined, but by whose hand depended on the heart of each man.
Exactly. God is so powerful that He can get His plan accomplished through the free will of man.
God determined for Jesus to be crucified. Absolutely! Only a Calvinist would claim that the redemption of mankind is an "evil purpose." God's purpose was absolutely good, not evil. That good was certainly *painful* for Jesus, but surgery to remove a cancer is also painful. We don't call the surgery evil and the cancer good. Well, Calvinists might.
I do analogies a lot too. 😅 Mainly cause I feel like they get a point I'm trying to get across better.
I saw a few comments in the live chat stating that they dont think Doug Wilson worships the same God as they do. I'm starting to think the same thing. James White's god is completely different from mine. My God doesn't decree every evil act, his does. My God is holy, theirs is a tyrannical monster.
Calvinism's 9-not 5 POINTS called TULIP- points are EASILY REFUTED from GENESIS TO REVELATION with clear language, in plain CONTEXT.
From God speaking to Adam and Adam answering God, Adam being spiritually dead (separated, needing to be reconciled) in Genesis to Jews in Israel sacrificing children in the 3 Jeremiah passages- 7:31; 19:5; 32:35- where God says they did what was: 1) not commanded by Him 2) never entered His mind.
Mankind born only of the Earthly Adam, until they die, since Adam, are COMMANDED to REPENT AND TURN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS! After Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Adam, was sacrificed according to God's plan, then raised from the dead on the third day, ascending to the Father and sending the Holy Spirit from the Father, God still commanding all people everywhere to repent and turn to Him, and now believe in the sacrificed Jesus the ANOINTED ONE for forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and salvation from GOD'S COMING WRATH AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT FOR SIN, being now born again.
This birth now in the heavenly Adam, presently still, from time to time disobeying God and sinning even though heavenly birth and reconciliation is attained already, including being seated in the heavenlies with Christ, etc. refutes Calvinism.
Calvinism's DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGN and MITICULOUS DETERMINISM teaches that God decides EVERY SINGLE thought word and action that every person will think say and do and is easily refuted by this description of mankind from GENESIS TO REVELATION, saved or unsaved, except for the practice of the life after Spiritual new birth and reconciliation. The 3 Jeremiah passages are unmitigated in refuting Calvinism's definition of SOVEREIGN and MITICULOUS DETERMINISM! Adam could not speak to God when God addressed him after he sinned, dying Spiritually if Calvinism's 9-not 5-POINTS called TULIP were true! Calvinism teaches a false gospel too, they teach that one is BORN OF THE HEAVENLY ADAM without believing in Jesus the anointed one for forgiveness of sins, this is a false gospel and the ultimate example of INCOMPETENCE. Every Calvinist elder should immediately resign!
@Sara Shepherd
The law is a curse upon Israel because they put themselves under the works of the law rather than acknowledging they are sinners by the law.
The law was given for the knowledge of sin.
God asks us to keep His law in our hearts so that we are reminded of sin.
By the law, we are able to acknowledge that we are unable to keep it perfectly and that we need grace and mercy.
Proverbs 3:1
“My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:”
Proverbs 4:4
“He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.”
Israel MADE the law into a curse because of what they chose to do with it...they used it to puff themselves up, rather than allowing it to HUMBLE them...which is the PURPOSE of the law.
There's the law of God which is good, pure, and holy.
Then there are the WORKS of the law which are filthy rags.
Galatians 3:10
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”
PLEASE, reconsider referring to the God of the OT as Satan.
Jesus is the word of God and the OT speaks of HIM.
John 5:46
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”
Correct, Acts 4:28 was determined to happen and was Gods plan. God did in fact plan to offer up His Son as a blameless sacrifice to cover the sins of the world. God knew that these hardened Jews would reject their own messiah and bring about the redemption of the world. Very good Pastor Doug. Acts 2:23
He was delivered up by God's set plan and foreknowledge, and YOU, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
The way I see it is this. God the Father can do whatever he wants, even if to us it seems evil. Ultimately what's evil is to disobey God, to break his commandments, this doesn't apply to God because he created the commandments for us, not him, but sin does apply to Jesus because Jesus is also a man.
Modal Fallacy: Gods foreknowledge does not equal causation Min 31:12
Basically Wilson is unclear on the terms and he therefore fails to provide a consistent argument.
Hello Leighton. I absolutely agree with your position even as a five point Calvinist. I tried to share this with you before but I do take the position of RC Sproul. Never got a response back from you but there are Calvinists who hold all five points who believe that God does not decree in an active way the sins which people commit. But most Calvinist like myself, believe that God actively decrees good but passively allows evil and that in and of itself is a decree which is passive. There’s nothing that you shared that I actually disagree with other than the fact that you are trying to answer an issue which hyper Calvinist would hold to. My act to fill a glass of water halfway is active but there’s another passive act which also happens and that is the allowance that the other half of the glass remain empty. One Act but two results. This is the best way that I believe represents both positions in a balanced way. So now with this understanding we know that God is not actively involved in causing people to sin. But is always actively involved benevolently toward humans and his creation. Your thoughts in regards to how I see it and how RC Sproul sees it.
I would argue the filling of the glass has only one result because the other half was empty to begin with. The glass being empty resulted from an action of creating the glass.
I’d be interested to know more about what you believe about this passive allowance of evil under calvinism. My daughter is a week old. If my wife and I remove all our provision from her, are we passively or actively harming her? I honestly am curious about your view, I’m not looking for a “gotcha” moment. I’ve always felt that this type of reasoning is akin to saying “Well sure I built the gun and created the bullet and fired the gun but the bullet freely chose to act in accordance with its nature after being fired before it struck that person, therefore the bullet alone is fully blame worthy”
@@TKK0812 Hello Keegan. Thank you for bringing this up. I’ve often wondered how to reconcile both issues between my ears. But one of the things that really caused me to understand the positive - negative or the active - passive is my understanding of what took place in the garden of Eden. I think a point that’s often overlooked is the law in relation to sin. We know that Paul states that apart from the law there is no sin. In fact it is The law that stirs up sin within us. So if we look at God planting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden we know that God did it intentionally knowing that Adam would partake if it’s fruit. Up until then there was no law of negation. All of the laws that were given to Adam and Eve were positive laws. One being, “be fruitful and multiply”. But it’s not until we come to the scene where God tells Adam that of all the trees in the garden Adam and Eve would be allowed to partake but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this they were not allowed to partake. Because on the day they eat of its fruit they shall surely die. You and I know what that means. This law of negation stirred within Adam that desire to partake and when he did he did understand what he didn’t understand before - the difference between good and evil. Leighton uses the example of the sting operation. This does not necessarily mean that a particular agency of government is coercing actively a person to violate the law.
In regards to the glass half filled. I look at the state of humanity as it is when sin passed from one man to all men. This is the state of the glass being empty. But God choosing actively out of a fallen race of humanity (the glass that is empty) to be his own has also passively allowed others to continue to their own destruction. I believe that God’s decrees are active and are good but what man has done to himself are done by himself and could never blame God for doing those things. God does not cause men to sin. I also believe that God allowing us to have free will within the parameters of our physical nature and our spiritual nature is a bigger God than a God who has to have everything in his active control. In other words, a God who allows us freedom of choice and yet is able to maintain control, is in greater control despite our choices. I know that my belief is different than some of my Calvinist counterparts but I do hold to an understanding that RC Sproul and my old pastor John MacArthur hold. Blessings to you and yours always. Walter
It is not a decree of God to passively allow evil unless you are using a different definition for decree or ordain. Please define the word decree as you use it. The problem is evil is NOT a decree of God based on the definition of the word. This is usually explained through multiple wills of God but am not aware of any biblical teaching of multiple wills of God. Causality and foreknowledge are not the same.... I don't know if the glass is a good example. The only action is filling the glass; the result is a glass that is now half full (cause and effect affirmed through scripture). Your argument seems parallel to arguing a scenario where one man kills another man and both are responsible; the murderer for pulling the trigger, and the victim because he was passively in the way of the bullet.
@@thevoiceofonecallingout You may be right in regards to God’s decree. But I thought that I was fairly clear in my response to Keegan that God’s decree was his positive action. Since you used the word causality I would say then by default there was a causality that God did not have to necessarily be actively involved in. I still don’t understand why you feel that my illustration was non-Sequitur. It is an illustration of oh I see humanity as being fallen and judged already. By default we are fallen creatures in need of a Savior but God rich in mercy has decreed some to be his own. By God’s one act of graciousness there were two causes that resulted. If he did not act graciously then there would be only one cause and that would be damnation for all of humanity. What God desires to do he does. The difference in the words Thelo and boulomai in the Greek. God‘s sovereign will as opposed to his desirous will. There are multiple wills of God
I am supposing that maybe you support Leighton’s position. I can shared earlier, I don’t have a problem with how Leighton see’s how we interact on a temporal point of reference. We who are evil can do good and what we experience through our senses are picked up by sight sound experiences etc.… But there are things that are vertical not necessarily horizontal in relation to what we cannot see or necessarily sense. I cannot see the spirit as Christ says no one knows where the wind goes or where it comes from so it is with the spirit. There is an action that God takes which we don’t necessarily see but feeling it from an earthly point of reference I can understand how Leighton comes to his conclusions. I agree with what he is saying according to this presentation of his. And I am a five point Calvinist. I don’t think that there necessarily Hass to be a disagreement on what he had brought up In this presentation. Now on other presentations I disagree with many of his points.
@@walterrobertson3265 I was only addressing this presentation.
I did change non-sequitur because it was too harsh. What I understood you to say is that there are two actions, active and passive in the filling of the glass. I see it as one active action (cause) with resultant effect. The problem (not you specifically) is that "we" throw around decree and ordain and the definitions I have seen lead to a specifically initiated outcome. That does make God responsible for evil since he ordered or decreed it. But to me that is neither consistent with God's character nor what scripture teaches. Indeed God spent much of the OT warning men not to do what is wrong.
For example I do not believe God decreed (ordered) Adam to sin because God warned Adam not to do it. Did God know Adam would sin? Yes. Did God order or decree Adam to sin? No. To do so would make God deceitful and that is not God. God earnestly desired Adam not to sin and even warned Adam even though God knew that Adam would sin and planned for that failure in advance.
So I think we agree that God does not, through His positive action, commit men to sin. Now I assume we both believe God allows men to sin. But He does not desire it for God tells us what His desire is; that is we not sin.
IMHO the problem with all these arguments is they dismiss the implications of interactions that occur between an omniscient and omnipotent being and we limited human beings. For example God earnestly desired Adam to obey and dealt with him as a being who had the ability to choose. He did not show up to Adam and say "well you shouldn't sin but I know you are going to so just do what you are going to do".
Finally I am not sure the two Greek words you mention reflect two different things but maybe need to do a little research; for example Paul willed (boulomai) Onesimus to remain with him. There are other examples as well. God had a purpose for the Israelites to share the gospel but they refused. Men refuse to do the will of God. Because of God's knowledge he can sidestep or circumvent failures of men if it affects something he purposes to happen. Our salvation was of critical importance to God and nothing was going to circumvent that. The sharing of the gospel by the Jews was also purposed but did not occur and in rejecting God, he blinded them and gave the gospel to a people who would produce its fruit.
In any event we probably are closer to the same position on this topic than the many words suggest. All God's best to you and yours.
To me Doug Wilson's analogy is like using Lazarus as someone totally dead as their example you can't use the crucifixion of Christ as an example mens sin it's actually disgusting.
I meant if God decrees all evil, not evil acts
I think Calvinists think God decrees all things because He has foreknowledge and does not stop it. It must be His will if He doesn't intervene.
As a calvinist, I would say foreknowledge is established by God ordaining all things. Foreordination comes prior to foreknowledge.
@@austinmoore4617 Just because someone has foreknowledge of something doesn't mean that person necessarily ordained it. After I have watched a movie I would have foreknowledge of the ending for someone else who has just started to watch it in another session, and I can tell that person what the ending will be. That doesn't mean I ordained the movie to end the way it did.
@@xenofonz7640 I understand your view. I was trying to explain to @heavenguy that calvinists believe that foreordination establishes his foreknowledge. Your example of you watching a movie is an example of knowledge obtained and looking back. I don't think God merely saw what would happen apart from ordaining history. I don't believe God learned what people would decide.
Yes, one-hour ones are much more bite-sized than "three horror ones."
When Calvinists argue that since God determined one evil event(the crucifixion), then this means that God can determine all evil without being implicated in evil, they are just asserting this. If it's even possible that God can determine an event to happen through using the libertarianly free choices of human beings, then God isn't culpable since it's the humans who are making the choices. Also, just because God determines to sacrifice Himself, it doesnt necessarily follow that God can determine a human's sinful choice and not be culpable. It's easy to see why God wouldnt be culpable for sacrificing Himself if one realizes that God didnt causally determine the choices of the agents involved, but if God did causally determine the agents choices then it seems that He would surely be culpable for that. Pure Goodness and Holiness wouldn't do something like that.
Again we need to be careful that a specific example in scripture is generalized to all scripture. I think we can agree that Acts 2 is a specific example related to something that God was going to bring to pass for the good of all mankind yet even in this, foreknowledge is explicitly stated. Yes the act was evil and yet God could have stopped them but that does not mean He ordered (or decreed) the evil act. He simply leveraged what He knew would happen.
@@CBALLEN The question is difference between knowledge and causality. So did God plan (that is cause) Adam and Eve to sin?
@@CBALLEN What did God plan to take place beforehand'?
@@CBALLEN I don't think that is true UNLESS you believe God to be a liar. For God tells us what His will is but then watches it not be done. So if we claim that God is telling us that He wants X and then Y happens and Y is really His will, then He is not being honest and we know God is honest.
@@CBALLENI can do better than that. He knew they couldn't. BUT that does not mean that they are not to be committed to them and to try. This is emphasized throughout the NT as well. So that does not line up with my example. For it to align with what i told you it would have to be that God told us he wanted us to obey the 10 commandments when he really didn't.
Do they believe God and Satan are the same person?
They would deny believing this, but if you follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion, then that is, in fact, exactly what they believe! The "god" of Calvinism is morally indistinguishable from the devil, differing only in name, level of power, and authority. In short, the "god" of Calvinism is what the devil was trying to become by rebelling against God in the first place!
30:25 well put Leighton!
Amazing explanation!
Hardening of Hearts: 42:25
Why wouldn't the most high do that. Les you rather worst do it instead.. Whom do you worship...
No, Leighton. He DOES intend to use doublespeak. Calvinists use mental and linguistic gymnastics to confuse the listener. It is deliberate. Calvinists WANT God to be evil. That's why so many prominent Calvinists, when they discover that their theology of an evil God is a lie, become atheists. God wasn't evil enough for them.
Doug looks like Santa.
Does man have the ability to change or alter God’s decree or prophecy using man’s supposed Freewill? If the answer is yes man CAN alter God’s prophecy or decree then man has become God! This LIE goes all the way back to Eve in the Garden .
The word "decree" does NOT mean to allow something. When a king issues a decree it is not an allowance; it is a demand. God does not decree evil. The "god" of Calvinism DOES decree evil. Calvinists don't worship God; Calvinists worship Satan and call the devil "God." They take all Scripture out of context -- like their father the devil -- in order to force the text to deny God's character...something they apparently don't know at all.
Luke 22:22 Min 41:05
Any provisionist channels in Spanish?
Absolute sovereignty but with limits. Contradiction?
God is sovereign in everything and can do anything, does that mean He will? No, because his holy nature does not allow it. God can lie and do malicious acts but his holy nature does not allow it. Every act "bad" or "creator of some evil" that God is seen to do is for two reasons: 1) Just punishment or 2) With a good purpose behind. The "bad" act of God can never be without a good purpose, God cannot perform evil acts despite being sovereign because his nature does not allow it, since if he would do so it would be to instill part of the evil in God. One cannot make up things in ambiguous verses and mix up the sovereignty of God by saying that he can do any act he wants, there are acts that he will never do because he is holy. SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE LIMITS OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES.
When one does not understand the purposes and thoughts of God, he should say "I don't know about this" and not invent things to suit the champions of the doctrine of other religions.
The criterion of interpretation here must be by dismissal, God cannot perform evil acts simply by "being sovereign", his nature does not allow it, as he cannot lie although he can do it because he is sovereignbut he will not do that because he is Holy and if he will lie we would be saying there is darkness in God (Hebrews 6:18).
When you say that God can do evil, you are attributing evil to him, which is incompatible in nature, in the same way you could say that he can lie because he is so sovereign, which he can do, but HE WILL NEVER DO IT. CAUSE OF YOUR NATURE (hebrews 6:18), What is the difference between doing a wrong act and lying? They are both bad. When God "does a bad act" it is by punishment or with a purpose behind, he can never do a bad act in himself, his nature does not allow it.
God absolutely cannot lie or do evil my brother this is not the definition of sovereignty james tells you God cannot be tempted by evil or tempt anyone gods sovereignty has nothing to do with his ability to do evil but his absolutely power and authority and infinite wisdom over all things therefore his sovereignty is without limits GOD CANNOT LIE OR DO EVIL ACTS AND HE CANNOT WANT TO HE CANNOT DO IT IF HE WANTS HE COULD NEVER WANT TO DO THIS THIS IS A IMPOSSIBILITY IF HE COULD LIE HE WOULD NOT BE GOD GOD CANNOT CHOOSE TO LIE OR DO EVIL
Let me put this another way my brother with all due respect and peace to you it is not true that God could lie or do evil but his holiness keeps him from this evil act the problem is when you say "GOD COULD LIE OR DO EVIL"BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES KEEP HIM FROM THIS. on the contrary Gods other attributes does not keep God from lying or doing other evil acts if God wanted to commit evil acts God cannot commit evil acts and could never want to this is something you can attribute to a human being who can be tempted by evil yet refrain from the evil acts God is not human
God allows it to a certain level.
Sam Logosz okay the level is certain, what level is it? All the time, some of the time, when we choose, none of time, all the time expect when god expressly says he did t do it (reminder... god is not an author of confusion so I. Sure you can give a certain answer)
Decreed
Calvinists are just Manichaean pagans hiding behind Christian words. There god is Zeus. Study the attributes of Zeus and you’ll say,”ah, Calvin”!
I knew beforehand that this Calvinist would lie. That doesn't mean that I foreknew it from before the foundation of the earth. The account of Joseph and his brothers is a perfect example. The brothers determined to sell their brother into slavery SO THAT evil would befall him. God determined that being sold into slavery would lead to good befalling him, SO THAT Israel would be saved. Only a Calvinist would claim that God wanting good to befall Joseph is evil. Only a Calvinist would claim that saving Israel is evil.
God does not decree all evil, what nonsense it this, so did God decree or command satan to sin against him ?
Calvin's god creates people to function as "Instruments"
Composing and producing every note that will play within the human brain - like he's playing a piano.
But just wait - until that music is something the Calvinist doesn't like.
Suddenly Calvin's god isn't the one playing it! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi So now we have - Psychological Projection which is not in scripture - and Tourretes which is! And any suggestion that a Calvinist at least try to be consistent with his own belief system is perceived as folly in the Calvinist's brain! What a hoot!! ;-D
Calvinists always provide the most wonderful examples of DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Thus it follows - Calvin's god is the composer and producer of the "I'm making my instrument reject me" tune. :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Then it logically follows - the same would be true for you of course. Unless the tune Calvin's god composes and produces in your brain is different?
I wonder why Calvin's god composes and produces the "I make my instrument reject me" tune?
Perhaps he is expressing self-loathing?
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Calvin's god doesn't exist - yet non-Calvinist god does? I certainly appreciate the continued examples of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK! :-]
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Wonderful! Its hilarious to watch Calvinists do exactly what I already know they will. In this case - per my first statement:
-quote
But just wait - until that music is something the Calvinist doesn't like.
Suddenly Calvin's god isn't the one playing it!
Thank you for another example of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK. :-]
Interesting.
The stone of stumbling is Jesus. Whoever believes in him wont stumble. Peter 2:6.
Jesus=stumbling block. PETER 2:6
"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined/appointed to do." Peter 2:7
(They stumble on Jesus because they disobey, as they were destined to.)
YOUR premise: They were appointed/destined to stumble on Jesus for being disobedient.
Doug's premise: They were appointed/destined to be disobedient which causes them to stumble on Jesus.
My 2 cents:
Could both be true, could it imply both? Could they be both: destined to disobey and destined to stumble for being disobedient?
It could.
The probability of your premise/claim being the only true premise/claim is very low because as shown in the example above (in my 2 cents) your claim does not negate the existence of Doug's claim .
Is45v7
Although god is not evil
He created the tree of knowledge
Which had evil in it
Man and woman also Angel's were
Made mutable liable to change