Overcoming

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are still trying to redefine the word “approval” to frame it in a manner that is not how people understand it.

We cannot move “outside the terminology and definitions of words” and communicate effectively. You seem to want to force us to relinquish the common meaning of ‘approval’ and accept your idea that God approves of all that happens, including vile crimes and horrific acts. Then it will be said that God therefore decreed and ordained these ungodly events. And that is the concept that God is the author of sin, which is a blasphemy.

Approve means to endorse something as acceptable, pleasing, desirable, satisfying.

So God never approves of sin or evil, for He hates and punishes wickedness.

God does not give His approval to the abominations and atrocities that happen in this world, no matter how you try to twist that word “approval” to suit your Calvinism.

God would prefer to bring about His will and kingdom without allowing any human misdeeds to occur, but in His mercy, He designed a plan that overcomes human sin, and will eventually result in that preferred world, the new heavens and new earth wherein dwells righteousness.

Thank you, that’s exactly the distinction I’ve been trying to maintain. The issue isn’t whether God permits events within His sovereign plan; we all agree He does. The issue is whether Scripture ever uses the word approve for the sinful acts themselves. It does not.

God’s plan is perfect. Human sin is not. God permits sin; He never approves it. God uses sin; He never endorses it. God overrules sin; He never delights in it.

If we collapse approve into permit, we end up saying God “approves” every atrocity ever committed, which Scripture flatly denies. That’s the only distinction I’m guarding.

 

[percho]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. from Gen 1:2
because it is God who said, Out of darkness light is to shine, from 2 Cor 4:6

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, from Acts 26:18

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. from Rev 12:9

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? from Gen 3:1

that he might destroy him - - - - - - , that is, the devil; from Heb 2:14


On the earth, when did, "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan," arrive? Was he already Satan? Did he upon arrival need to be destroyed? How exactly was God, the Light, going to go about destroying the devil and his works. Was ,the means to do so, going to require the sin and thus the death?

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Eph 6:12 YLT because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

Why did God make man in his own image?

1 John 3:8 KJV He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. from Gen 1:2
because it is God who said, Out of darkness light is to shine, from 2 Cor 4:6

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, from Acts 26:18

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. from Rev 12:9

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? from Gen 3:1

that he might destroy him - - - - - - , that is, the devil; from Heb 2:14


On the earth, when did, "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan," arrive? Was he already Satan? Did he upon arrival need to be destroyed? How exactly was God, the Light, going to go about destroying the devil and his works. Was ,the means to do so, going to require the sin and thus the death?

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Eph 6:12 YLT because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

Why did God make man in his own image?

1 John 3:8 KJV He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Percho, the verses you quoted all testify to God’s victory over darkness, but none of them say that sin or Satan were necessary for God’s plan. Christ destroys the works of the devil, but that does not mean God required those works in order to accomplish His purpose.

God permits evil, overrules evil, and ultimately defeats evil, but Scripture never presents evil as something God needed or approved. The fall was not necessary for God’s glory; it is something God overcomes for His glory.

 

[percho]

Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through [the] death he might destroy him having the power of [the] death -- that is, the devil --

2:14 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον

Was death necessary in order to destroy the devil.

BTW there's that definite article, again, I was asking about the other day.

Where was the death going to come from?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through [the] death he might destroy him having the power of [the] death -- that is, the devil --

2:14 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον

Was death necessary in order to destroy the devil.

BTW there's that definite article, again, I was asking about the other day.

Where was the death going to come from?

Hebrews 2:14 tells us the means God chose to destroy the devil, the death of Christ, but it does not say that death or sin were necessary for God’s plan. Death entered through Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12), not because God required it. Christ destroyed the devil by entering the realm of death and rising from it, not because God needed evil, but because He overcomes it.

The definite article in “the death” refers to Christ’s own death, not to death as a necessary precondition for God’s purpose.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'How is Satan's role as the Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through [the] death he might destroy him having the power of [the] death -- that is, the devil --

2:14 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον

Was death necessary in order to destroy the devil.

BTW there's that definite article, again, I was asking about the other day.

Where was the death going to come from?

There had to be a death to establish the justice of God, for 'the wages of sin is death.' The devil is described as '...The accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night...' (Rev. 12:10). We see him entering right into God's presence to accuse in Job 1 & 2, and Zech. 3. The devil's strength is that his accusations are just. God's people are all sinners and deserve to be punished. The theologian Henri Blocher has an article on this, focusing on Satan's accusation of Joshua the High Priest in Zech. 3:

'How is Satan's role as the "accuser" related to his power? If Satan's oposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel's finite resources would equal zero confronted with infinity. But the Accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander, but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation. Joshua is unclean, unspeakably unclean, clothed in filthy garments (Zech 3:4). The righteous JUdge of all the earth, who can only do right, cannot refuse to hear the charges the Accuser brings without denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law, God's holy and perfect law. [Henri Blocher, Agnus Victor in John G. Stackhouse (ed.), What does it mean to be saved? (Baker Books, 2002]

Satan's appeal is to God's justice and therefore, the defeat of the devil must involve the removal of our guilt, and this is exactly what happens at the cross. Christ's death is connected directly to the cancellation of our 'certificate of debt,' that stood against us' and 'was contrary to us' being nailed to the cross in Col. 2:14-15.
So how have the brethren overcome the devil and his hosts in Rev. 12:11? Not by might, not by power, but 'by the blood of the Lamb.'

'...Satan was the accuser, and he prevailed as long as he could point to their sins. But the blood of the Lamb was the price paid for the cancellation of their debt. [it] wiped out the guilt of their sins forever and the devil was disarmed [and cast down. M.M.] Similarly, Hebrews 2:14 stresses that Jesus deprived the devil of his power .... through His death, and we are told that 'He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the remission of the transgressions under the first covenant....' (Heb. 9:15). [Ibid]

Thus Christ is indeed the Victor over satan, but He is so by means of Penal Substitution by which our guilt is removed by being laid upon our Saviour, who has paid the price of them in full, so that God's response to the devil's accusation is consistent with His justice. 'The LORD rebuke you, Satan..... Is this not a brand plucked from the fire' (Zech. 3:2)? We are all brands plucked from the fire; plucked through the suffering and atoning death of our Lord Jesus.

 

[DaveXR650]

Approve means to officially agree to, accept, and speak favorably of something. It indicates that an action, plan, or idea has been judged as pleasing and satisfactory. Approving means it has received formal permission, sanction, validation, and authorization.

Now you guys put up a definition of approve that has in it exactly the way I am using it and then complain that I am using it in that way. My use of "approve" is that God gives "formal permission" and "sanctions" the action and in so doing allows it to occur. It can be that an action pleases God in that the action involves someone acting according to his will but that does not have to be the case for God to approve that the action be.

 

[Ascetic X]

Now you guys put up a definition of approve that has in it exactly the way I am using it and then complain that I am using it in that way. My use of "approve" is that God gives "formal permission" and "sanctions" the action and in so doing allows it to occur. It can be that an action pleases God in that the action involves someone acting according to his will but that does not have to be the case for God to approve that the action be.

We explain what “approve” means, and why it should not be used when speaking of God’s relationship with evil, but you persist in using it anyway. Because of your Calvinism.

You say God is okay with sin, when you say He approves of everything that happens, including abominations and atrocities.

A human father may permit his child to make mistakes, but that does not mean he approves of the mistakes.

God never approves of evil. He hates wickedness.


Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.


Psalm 5

4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

 

[DaveXR650]

We explain what “approve” means, and why it should not be used, but you persist in using it anyway. Because of your Calvinism.

I am using your provided definition. The exact words. Plus, I previously gave you my blessings to use a different word if you desired. Yet you continue to argue against a point I did not make.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The one thing none of the Deterministic Fatalists have addressed is the Book of Life itself. Every reply has tried to drag the discussion back into the Calvinist system, but the text stands untouched:

• Names are written.
• Names can be blotted out.
• God warns believers about being blotted out.
• Christ promises overcomers their name will not be blotted out.

This alone refutes the Calvinist framework. A fixed, eternal decree cannot contain erasable names.

Until someone is willing to deal honestly with the Book of Life as Scripture presents it, not as the system requires it to be, there’s nothing further to discuss.

 

[Ascetic X]

I am using your provided definition. The exact words. Plus, I previously gave you my blessings to use a different word if you desired. Yet you continue to argue against a point I did not make.

You are using “approve” to describe God endorsing evil. That is bad theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

The fall was not necessary for God’s glory; it is something God overcomes for His glory.

This is where it gets interesting. We are told the Lamb was considered slain before the foundation of the world. This makes no sense if the Fall was not necessary as well as certain. Where Calvinists are split is whether God "foresaw" the Fall as a free action of man or would that violate the Calvinistic principle that God does not do anything, even ordaining a future event, that is based upon a free action of man. In other words, does God determine future events in response to man's free will or does God determine future events, period, and thus when we observe the Fall, can we say God ordained it - even that God determined it to occur. I tend to think that God is foreseeing future events and taking those contingencies into consideration when planning the future. Modern Calvinist theologians tend to disagree with this which is why it bothers me when people say "your Calvinism" when discussing things with me as I am a very moderate Calvinist. I am encouraged by some of Richard Muller's writings where these things are discussed and he has noticed what I have noticed - that Calvinists of the Puritan era seemed to in their preaching at least, have no problem with an action you do being part of a contingency that truly affects the course of events and yet having God still be all knowing and completely sovereign over all future events.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are using “approve” to describe God endorsing evil. That is bad theology.

Once again. He approves the evil action in the sense he let's the action occur. He approved the action of Joseph's brothers in that way. He in no way "endorsed" what they did. I don't understand why you keep repeating such a ridiculous charge. If we had a moderator you would be told to stop doing this as it makes the board look stupid in it's level of discussion. I use Joseph's brothers as an example because it is a case where later, Joseph himself points this out to his brothers when he confronts them. This is simply not arguable by a rational person.

 

[DaveXR650]

This alone refutes the Calvinist framework. A fixed, eternal decree cannot contain erasable names.

Is the necessity to live a holy life and relinquish sin compatible with "election". Yet both are taught in scripture and both are preached by Calvinists.

 

[DaveXR650]

What is arguable, and worth discussing is whether our actions as humans can be considered truly free and at the same time can God truly be sovereign in his plans of the future.

Many Calvinists say no and thus diminish the free will decisions of men in order to honor God's sovereignty.
Many non-Calvinists say no and insist therefore that the "elect" are not known by God yet, that it's possible that all future events can be truly changed and that God must react to our free wills (which are supreme) and that is what will determine the future.
Some Calvinists (and I agree with them) believe that all the free will decisions of men are truly free and that they are also really known by God and have already been taken into account. This leaves man's free will intact at least to the extent God has allowed, and it also accepts the sovereignty of God which is necessary if for instance prophesy is to be possible.

The Book of Life may enter into this but I have just not heard of anyone else bringing it up.

 

[Ascetic X]

What is arguable, and worth discussing is whether our actions as humans can be considered truly free and at the same time can God truly be sovereign in his plans of the future.

Many Calvinists say no and thus diminish the free will decisions of men in order to honor God's sovereignty.
Many non-Calvinists say no and insist therefore that the "elect" are not known by God yet, that it's possible that all future events can be truly changed and that God must react to our free wills (which are supreme) and that is what will determine the future.

In the Bible, sovereign defines God as the supreme, ultimate ruler over all creation. It means He possesses absolute authority, perfect wisdom, and unstoppable power to accomplish His will. No person, event, or force can successfully thwart His purposes.

Calvinists go beyond this in their use of sovereignty. For them, it means that God approves of and wills everything that happens.

Man has no free choice, he is just a puppet of sin or a robot controlled by God.

Calvinism: Man cannot repent or seek God. But God can arbitrarily force repentance upon a person.

 

[DaveXR650]

In the Bible, sovereign defines God as the supreme, ultimate ruler over all creation. It means He possesses absolute authority, perfect wisdom, and unstoppable power to accomplish His will. No person, event, or force can successfully thwart His purposes.

In other words, nothing can happen that God does not already know (perfect wisdom) will be attempted, and because of His absolute authority and unstoppable power, anything that does happen, happened because he allowed it to happen. It can be said that therefore:

Calvinists go beyond this in their use of sovereignty. For them, it means that God approves of and wills everything that happens.

He doesn't will it in the sense that what happens is always according to what God has told his creatures to do, but given your own definition of sovereignty, it does mean that the current situation exists because God is sovereignly allowing it to be so. It may also be his will that you fight against an evil situation and prevail. You and I in that case know what we should do if we follow God's revealed will. What we don't know is whether it will be God's overall will that we win even if we do follow God's revealed will. It may be God's plan that we be defeated, even though we are obeying his revealed will and are "in the right". Anyone who has lived as long as you and I have should already know this and I think you actually do.

Man has no free choice, he is just a puppet of sin or a robot controlled by God.

This is an inflammatory straw man argument that has been refuted so many times that to me it is just an insult rather than an honest statement.

Calvinism: Man cannot repent or seek God. But God can arbitrarily force repentance upon a person.

Here I would say Calvinism has a problem, at least in the explanation of the situation. I believe man should be able to understand God's revealed will and there is no real reason he cannot do so - except that his free will tends to always draw him to sin and error. Calvinists sometimes don't explain that the inability, though real, is moral in nature and is a result of our own free will and choices. Similarly, there is no reason even those of us who have not heard God's revealed will in scripture should not still be able to see that God exists and seek him - but we don't have a good track record in that area either, do we? These things are not speculation by Calvinists, they are proven generation after generation, everywhere and in all cultures and societies, classic and pagan. And while I don't think God forces repentance upon a person, neither do I think he does no more than offer "Provision" of the means of salvation and then leave it up to us. I will grant that that should by rights be more than sufficient, but it doesn't for some reason, appear that it is. Most Christians have a sense looking back, of being pursued and even manipulated into believing by Providence, either in circumstances, events, trials, and a pulling or sense of drawing by the Spirit. And they will admit that they can't say they would have come to Christ without this. So while it may not be "irresistible" absolutely, it certainly was in their case and in any case it could be said to be "effectual".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The one thing none of the Deterministic Fatalists have addressed is the Book of Life itself. Every reply has tried to drag the discussion back into the Calvinist system, but the text stands untouched:

• Names are written.
• Names can be blotted out.
• God warns believers about being blotted out.
• Christ promises overcomers their name will not be blotted out.

This alone refutes the Calvinist framework. A fixed, eternal decree cannot contain erasable names.

Until someone is willing to deal honestly with the Book of Life as Scripture presents it, not as the system requires it to be, there’s nothing further to discuss.

I wasn't aware that the thread was about the 'Book of Life.' The subject of the thread is 'overcoming.' Why aren't you addressing that. If you want to talk about the Book of Life, go and start a thread with that title, but don't tell me that I've avoided the subject of the thread because that is what you are currently doing.
Oh yes, and whom are you calling 'Deterministic fatalists'?