I just wanted to point out that the passages you read were speaking about God's revealed decree. God has revealed to no man that they are to burn their sons to Baal. As for God's hidden decree, He did ordain for them to burn their sons because He permitted it. Sometimes God intervenes, and sometimes He chooses not to intervene. It depends on what He wants. God decrees what we are to do, and God decrees what will actually take place. Revealed decree and hidden decree.
@yeshuaseven You stated: "He did ordain for them to burn their sons because He permitted it." One of the biggest mistakes that Reformers make is their use of the words "ordain" and "permit" interchangeably. Based on the definitions of both words, it is impossible to do both.
Who Louis created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The answer is God.God created by knowledge (an attribute) not an innate virtue,so god is not evil but having the knowledge presented it. Man ate the knowledge of good and evil,but being powerless to hold these virtues perfectly he sins.God created what He knew would bring greater Virtue than law and morality to man in the person of Christ through redemption.Only God can have knowledge of sin and be free of it in Virtue of who He is.
We do not have a religious problem and we will not lead you to a religion! We know God personally, and with him we have a continuing relationship, with those faculty who are killed with the first sin, because the Holy Spirit has raised them for us. With these choices, we could see in your future you just dragged to hell by demons while they laugh at you!
Sorry if I still love you and we take loving care of you. Blessings
To Optera34: There is a big difference betweeen allowing sin and ordaining or decreeing sin. Decree means to pre-arrange unalterably. For example, the Virgin Birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was decreed. Nothing could have stopped it. The prophecy that Jesis would be born in Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 also falls under God's decretive will. Nothing could have prevented its occurence. When God permits sin, He knows it is going to happen but chooses not to stop it. There's the difference.
The question I have is if God know all and sees all and if he controls all things then he knows sin will happen and if he doesnt stop it then he allows it so he ordane or decree's to allow sin A to happen since he could in theory stop it he so chose to.
Hey Lou, As we have already discussed in the room on Paltalk, the translations of the passages where it says "nor did it come to MY MIND" actually say in Hebrew "nor did it come upon MY HEART". (Hebr. lo altah AL LIBI) Meaning it was NOT Gods pleasure AT ALL that Israel did what it did. This truly distroys calvinisms claims. I cant believe that Calvinists believe that God takes pleasure in displeasing Himself!
To Firebrand: You began with the words: If God did not decree or permit sin, then how does it appear that God is Sovereign?" My response: you're right! God permitted the sin, but He didn't decree it. A most Holy God could never rebel against His nature by decreeing sin. But He will permit sin in order to hold the sinner accountable.
If God did not decree or permit sin, then how does it appear that God is Sovereign? this simply makes no sense whatsoever and contradicts saying that He is Sovereign. If God knows all things before they happen, then he knew sin would enter the world, therefore nothing can come to pass except God decrees that it should or can come to pass. Therefore God according the infinite and secret counsel of His own Will permitted this to happen.
Is Sin more Sovereign that God? You can't have it otherwise.
to ringmaster: Ever hear of biblical hermeneutics and the basic principle that Scripture interprets Scripture and verse interprets verse? What Calvinists do is isolate verses and passages and try building an argument based on the isolated text that they have placed in a vacuum. That's what you are doing.
How am I doing that? I haven't even offered an interpretation of anything. I'm asking how you interpret "nor did it enter my mind". You make such sweeping general statements, and false accusations against me. You are being unreasonable. You're trying to debate me on topics I'm not arguing with you on, and you are hardly even acknowledging that I asked you a straight question. I'm sorry I tried to ask you a basic question. Don't take your anger at Calvinists out on me sir.
I asked for exegesis of "nor did it enter my mind" and you keep talking about James 1:13 and putting words in my mouth. I'm not arguing that God forordains sin. So why give me verses to change my mind? I'm accusing you of double standard exegesis on "nor did it enter my mind." If I were in perfect agreement with you I would still accuse you of this.
You say it doesn't mean that God didn't know, but you need to give evidence, not just say it.
to ringmaster: This will be my last response to you on this subject since I have more videos to work on. When God said, "Nor did it come into my mind," He was stressing that the evil act committed by the Israelites did not originate with Him. James 1:13-14 states, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
To JKDarthrat: Exactly! Reformed Theology makes all of God's commandments null and void. Why would God give all of those commandments and then decree people to break them? If people just took a step back for a moment and thought about it and reasoned this out, I believe that they would no longer embrace that position and accept the fact that our most Holy God decides to permit sin so He can justifiably hold the sinner accountable for it. It's all about choice, and free will.
You are a wise man Lou. The Lord has greatly blessed you. I also do not want anyone to think I do not consider Calvinists brothers and sisters. I do consider them as such. I just do not agree with them. Many Calvinists say if we do not agree with them we honor man and not God. I admit I do not understand many things. I do know this though. The Lord gets all the Glory! We get none.
to ringmaster: by the way, the RSV also uses the word decree in Jer 19. And there's no double-standard on my part at all. You're just trying to talk yourself out of the fact that God clearly said that He didn't decree this evil act because you can't bring yourself to accept that God permitted the act "AND" man has free will.
Hey Lou, great video brother. I found what Doctor White said extremely disturbing. It also made no sense what so ever. I thought The Lord demanded the death penalty for rapists? So The Lord directly decreed the rape and then demands the death of the rapist? Huh? What? This I know for sure. The Lord certainly did not decree for Dr. White to say what he said. That is all on him. Dr. White sounds like one of Job's buddies to me. We know what The Lord thought of their counsel.
I never argued for the forordination of sin. It is absolutely rediculous to assume I did.
I'm just pointing out you're flawed reasoning and double standard.
You have not given a single explanation for why "Nor did it come into my mind" is against forordination but not against foreknowledge. Unless you exegete it to say that, you're using a double standard. This is my fifth time making this point, so it is you who does not want to change your mind.
Third time ignoring my question. How do you interpret "Nor did it come into my mind" as being against forordination but not against foreknowledge? That's called a double standard.
I have my reasons, but I'm consistent in not using this as a proof text against God foreordaining sin because I would have to apply it to foreknowledge.
By the way, neither the KJV,NKJV,NASB,nor NIV use the word "decree" in Jer.19. They use "speak". You should have mentioed that i your video.
to ringermaster: No, you're saying that God said that He didn't know! LOL. I'm just trying to help you understand what God meant by what He said. First of all, I'm sure that we both agree that Open Theism is false. Secondly, why don't you believe what God Himself said, that He did not decree the horrible evil which He spoke about in Jer 19:4-5? To be honest, I believe that this is something personal that you need to settle with Him.
You ignored my point twice! LOL! I'm asking you a question, I'm not arguing for the decree of sin or Open Theism. LOL. Im asking why you don't take that verse as saying God doesn't know the future. LOL!
You think this is something personal? LOL! I haven't stated anything. I've been asking you questions and you ignore them. LOL!
I could give all sorts of verses against open theism, the point is we must give a sound reason for how we interpret "Nor did it enter my mind". If it is not against foreknowledge, then why is it against forordination.
And as Louis explains, no doctrine is based on a single verse. An Open Theist could use that verse to defend his view, but once Ps.139 is looked at, the verse has to be seen in its correct context of God not WANTING those sacrifices (see Lev.19)
All false theology ignores the correct hermeneutics of comparing scripture with scripture and not relying on any single verse for a major doctrine (1Cor.2:13, 2Pe.1:20)
However, my question to Lou was how does that verse teach against forordination and not foreknowledge.
False theology also comes from ignoring the immediate context. My whole point is that Lou took the verse to mean what he wanted it to mean. He says it means God doesn't forordain sin, but by HIS standard, it should go against forknowledge as well.
No, the verse in its context is very clear by the words that surround it. God had made it clear in other passages (Lev.19) that He HATED human sacrifice, so what the Jews were doing was an abomination to him. So, the Biblical context of that verse is very clear, God never intended such an evil act to happen and those doing it were doing it DESPITE what God wanted. Now, God was PERMITTING it to happen, but they were going to reap the consequencs of their evil acts.
Why do you both try to debate me concerning forordination? I'm not arguing for it. So please, stop. I'm making one single point.
"No, the verse in its context is very clear by the words that surround it."
This doesn't change anything. Taking it in the immediate context does not get rid of an Open Theistic interpretation. I'm not arguing for forordination of sin! I'm saying Lou is incosistent in his use of "nor did it enter my mind."
I am not debating you for forordination, I am defending the use of that verse as a legimate proof text against the Calvinist view of the Decrees. Now,if some Open Theist wants to use that verse as a proof-text, he is free to do so, but he will have to explain the entire context of the passage as well. So, because someone can use a misuse a verse doesn't mean it can't be used correctly.
The problem is I keep stating that no good reason has been given for why "nor did it enter my mind" means no forordination, but there is still foreknowledge. At one point Lou uses this sentence alone for a proof text. I think that is wrong.
A straight reading means that God didn't know what was going to happen. Obviously we reject that, but the quesition remains "what does it mean?" Lou says it's that God didn't forordain sin, but I ask why. Why does this verse ALONE work as a proof text?
No, the problem is that you are taking an idiom and reading it as literal. Much like the Roman Catholics do with Jn.6:53-56. Context will tell you if a passage should be read literally or as a figure of speech. 'It never came into my mind' is simply speaking to the fact that God would never EVEN think of commanding such a thing, not that He didn't always know they would do it. The statement that He 'never commanded it' puts the rest of the statement in its correct context (Lev.18:21)
"you are taking an idiom and reading it as literal."
This is why I don't like talking to you. I'm not arguing for any particular reading! You and Lou keep accusing me of that. Asserting that it's an idiom needs EVIDENCE. Are there examples that this phrase is an idiom in the Bible or other literature? Or do you assume? The context doesn't help. And again, my problem is with how Lou asserts it as a proof text. My question remains: "Why does this verse ALONE work as a proof text?"
If you read the passage, it is very clear. Lou uses the entire sentence which shows that God did not Decree the Jews to murder their babies since it was against His WILL.
Now, that verse is very clear that God did not command the Jews to do what they were doing, so the Jews were doing something AGAINST God's directive will.
No, a straight reading doesn't mean God didn't know what was going on, it means that God did not WANT to happen that was happening.
I tried to make a simple point, and this is taking far too much explaining. I made my point repeatedly and I thought I made it quite well, you obviously feel otherwise. I'm sorry this was such a waste of time.
No, the point that you are trying to make is not a valid one, based on the correct reading of the verse. The english of the verse is very clear, and 'neither came into my mind' has nothing to do with God actually not knowing about it.
The beginning of the sentence makes that clear,
'which I commanded not, nor spake it nor did it come into my mind', the words after 'which I commanded not' simply reinforces the statement that IT WAS AGAINST GOD'S WILL.
Hey Lou, As we have already discussed in the room on Paltalk, the translations of the passages where it says "nor did it come to MY MIND" actually say in Hebrew "nor did it come upon MY HEART". (Hebr. lo altah AL LIBI) Meaning it was NOT Gods pleasure AT ALL that Israel did what it did. This truly distroys calvinisms claims. I cant believe that Calvinists believe that God takes pleasure in displeasing Himself!
I'm arguing that for you to be consistent, the text says it. I'm not saying it, I'm just asking why you don't interpret it as God not knowing the event before hand.
to prchdaword: (cont) and I have even less respect for a guy that likes hiding behind a youtube video proclaiming how smart he is. I'm only going to tell you this once: If we debate, I'll hang you out to dry.
I have several debates already under my belt that you can view on my website Mr. Ruggerio and am not worried about being "hung out to dry". If we do engage in debate I engage in informative debate which is intended to inform the audience and let them decide rather than engage in superficial debate. I can tell you that if you don't care which "brand of Calvinism" you are defending, I can tell you you will find yourself beating the air. Ask the questions and I'll answer the best I can ;)
I think Louis is really refuting the doctrines espoused in Hyper-Calvinism here ie: The child rape scenario.I do not deny that we make free-will choices,however,that never negates God's sovereignty over the ultimate outcome of any situation.Anyhow,Moses,"ENGAGE" I want to see you "Hung out to dry" LOL :)
that's cool...but if he's refuting Hyper-Calvinism/Determinism, isn't it rather shady to call that Calvinism when it is not? There is certainly no excuse for not knowing the difference with all the books that Mr. Ruggerio has read on the subject as I have pretty much read all those same works and others
alright alright...I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but you certainly have a point and he even claims to not care about knowing "what brand of Calvinism" I represent which basically means he doesn't want to really delve into and argue the issues. He just wants to throw a blanket argument and hope it fools enough people to fall for his arguments
yeah...I think he's got some anger issues when people challenge his understanding too. Notice how quick he flared up when I questioned his definitions and asked questions about the consistency of his view. Shouldn't he have welcomed those rather than get his feathers all ruffled?
to prchdaword: Listen preach, I'm not going to play games with you. You're right, I DON'T know which brand of Calvinism you are defending. Personally, I don't care. Like I said before, after I'm done with this 12 Lesson series we'll talk and perhaps set up a debate between you and I. But I highly recommend that you do some homeowork before you engage me in a live debate. I don't have much respect for Reformers who like asking questions but don't like providing any answers (cont)
to prchdaword: You wrote "the rhetoric game doesn't work Mr. Ruggerio. You are clearly using Jeremiah to support your own view, a view that Jeremiah himself did not even seek to establish in the context of his own work. We call that Eisegesis." My response: I wasn't using Jeremiah's words to support my views. God Himself said that He didn't decree the evil. Why don't you believe Him? I do! I'm glad you're keeping busy, You'll stay busy. I have about 15-20 more videos to post. Have a nice day.
To prchdaword: thanks for responding to my videos. Those verses and passages in the book of Jeremiah showing that God did not decree that the children of Israel offer their son and daughters through the fire of Baal really bother you, don't they? The fact that God does not tempt with evil as James says in James 1:13 also completely refute your position.
They do not refute my position at all because are you arguing from ignorance of my position in the first place. Calvinism distinguishes between the decretive will of God and God's preceptive will, both established in Scripture. You are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism/Fatalism and not Reformed Calvinism. Winning against a strawman is hardly an accomplishment on your part Mr. Ruggerio
This video like so many others try to discern light from darkness, by comparison. We should rather become familiar with the truth in all His ways and not compare, because comparison just leads to debate.
When we are familiar with Truth in all His ways, we know instantly when we encounter error.
Refarding your comments on Eph 1:11, where does that verse say that God decrees and ordains all things? I don't see the words "decree" or "ordain" in there at all!
the word "predestined" is pretty clear, and how are they predestined? According to the "free will of man"? No. They are predestined ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF HIM WHO WORKS ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL. Not "His will and the wills of the creatures"...God's will alone is what determines the purpose. It should be noted that the word "work" here is the same word that is used of God's working to raise Christ from the dead; it is his activity providentially guiding "all things"
the rhetoric game doesn't work Mr. Ruggerio. You are clearly using Jeremiah to support your own view, a view that Jeremiah himself did not even seek to establish in the context of his own work. We call that Eisegesis
you are not being consistent at all. You said that God is sovereign and rules all his creation but now you say that man's "free will" is allowed to live outside the bounds of God's decrees. Isn't man's "free will" part of God's creation? How does God exert his sovereignty over the "free will" of man? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that God has created sub-gods whom he cannot truly reign over because their wills are outside the scope of his sovereignty? Or is God a sovereign in name only?
Certainly it was as it is condemned in Scripture as a crime against the Messiah.
But doesn't the Bible say that Christ was delievered up to be killed the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God(Acts 2:23)?"For truly against your holy servant Jesus...both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel...to do whatever YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE DETERMINED BFORE TO BE DONE."(Acts4:27-28)
the"absolute extreme"or the consistent application of the clear teaching of the word?
Determinism is hardly what Calvinist hold to. Compatibolism is the more consistent term with what Calvinist believe. Determinism is a stoic fatalism of sorts.
Yes,God decrees and ordains "all things" (Eph. 1:11)which would include sin and righteousness. There is nothing in the text that limits the words "all things" in that text. If God is in control as you assert, isn't he in control of sin?
I just wanted to point out that the passages you read were speaking about God's revealed decree. God has revealed to no man that they are to burn their sons to Baal. As for God's hidden decree, He did ordain for them to burn their sons because He permitted it. Sometimes God intervenes, and sometimes He chooses not to intervene. It depends on what He wants. God decrees what we are to do, and God decrees what will actually take place. Revealed decree and hidden decree.
yeshuaseven 1 year ago
@yeshuaseven You stated: "He did ordain for them to burn their sons because He permitted it." One of the biggest mistakes that Reformers make is their use of the words "ordain" and "permit" interchangeably. Based on the definitions of both words, it is impossible to do both.
LOUISRUGG 1 year ago
Who Louis created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The answer is God.God created by knowledge (an attribute) not an innate virtue,so god is not evil but having the knowledge presented it. Man ate the knowledge of good and evil,but being powerless to hold these virtues perfectly he sins.God created what He knew would bring greater Virtue than law and morality to man in the person of Christ through redemption.Only God can have knowledge of sin and be free of it in Virtue of who He is.
polopowers1 1 year ago
We do not have a religious problem and we will not lead you to a religion! We know God personally, and with him we have a continuing relationship, with those faculty who are killed with the first sin, because the Holy Spirit has raised them for us. With these choices, we could see in your future you just dragged to hell by demons while they laugh at you!
Sorry if I still love you and we take loving care of you. Blessings
humanumgenus 2 years ago
To Optera34: There is a big difference betweeen allowing sin and ordaining or decreeing sin. Decree means to pre-arrange unalterably. For example, the Virgin Birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was decreed. Nothing could have stopped it. The prophecy that Jesis would be born in Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 also falls under God's decretive will. Nothing could have prevented its occurence. When God permits sin, He knows it is going to happen but chooses not to stop it. There's the difference.
LOUISRUGG 2 years ago
The question I have is if God know all and sees all and if he controls all things then he knows sin will happen and if he doesnt stop it then he allows it so he ordane or decree's to allow sin A to happen since he could in theory stop it he so chose to.
Optera34 2 years ago
Hey Lou, As we have already discussed in the room on Paltalk, the translations of the passages where it says "nor did it come to MY MIND" actually say in Hebrew "nor did it come upon MY HEART". (Hebr. lo altah AL LIBI) Meaning it was NOT Gods pleasure AT ALL that Israel did what it did. This truly distroys calvinisms claims. I cant believe that Calvinists believe that God takes pleasure in displeasing Himself!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
Did you choose to be born?
at987ta 3 years ago
To Firebrand: You began with the words: If God did not decree or permit sin, then how does it appear that God is Sovereign?" My response: you're right! God permitted the sin, but He didn't decree it. A most Holy God could never rebel against His nature by decreeing sin. But He will permit sin in order to hold the sinner accountable.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
If God did not decree or permit sin, then how does it appear that God is Sovereign? this simply makes no sense whatsoever and contradicts saying that He is Sovereign. If God knows all things before they happen, then he knew sin would enter the world, therefore nothing can come to pass except God decrees that it should or can come to pass. Therefore God according the infinite and secret counsel of His own Will permitted this to happen.
Is Sin more Sovereign that God? You can't have it otherwise.
FirebrandNIRE 3 years ago
Sin is rebellion against God. If God decreed sin then He rebelled against Himself.That is not possible. Calvinists are wrong.
megawolf7 3 years ago 3
Amen!
JKODarthrat 3 years ago
to ringmaster: Ever hear of biblical hermeneutics and the basic principle that Scripture interprets Scripture and verse interprets verse? What Calvinists do is isolate verses and passages and try building an argument based on the isolated text that they have placed in a vacuum. That's what you are doing.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
How am I doing that? I haven't even offered an interpretation of anything. I'm asking how you interpret "nor did it enter my mind". You make such sweeping general statements, and false accusations against me. You are being unreasonable. You're trying to debate me on topics I'm not arguing with you on, and you are hardly even acknowledging that I asked you a straight question. I'm sorry I tried to ask you a basic question. Don't take your anger at Calvinists out on me sir.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to ringmaster: I know! This is the fifth time I've explained it to you and you just don't get it!
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
I asked for exegesis of "nor did it enter my mind" and you keep talking about James 1:13 and putting words in my mouth. I'm not arguing that God forordains sin. So why give me verses to change my mind? I'm accusing you of double standard exegesis on "nor did it enter my mind." If I were in perfect agreement with you I would still accuse you of this.
You say it doesn't mean that God didn't know, but you need to give evidence, not just say it.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to ringmaster: This will be my last response to you on this subject since I have more videos to work on. When God said, "Nor did it come into my mind," He was stressing that the evil act committed by the Israelites did not originate with Him. James 1:13-14 states, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fifth time.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
To JKDarthrat: Exactly! Reformed Theology makes all of God's commandments null and void. Why would God give all of those commandments and then decree people to break them? If people just took a step back for a moment and thought about it and reasoned this out, I believe that they would no longer embrace that position and accept the fact that our most Holy God decides to permit sin so He can justifiably hold the sinner accountable for it. It's all about choice, and free will.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
You are a wise man Lou. The Lord has greatly blessed you. I also do not want anyone to think I do not consider Calvinists brothers and sisters. I do consider them as such. I just do not agree with them. Many Calvinists say if we do not agree with them we honor man and not God. I admit I do not understand many things. I do know this though. The Lord gets all the Glory! We get none.
JKODarthrat 3 years ago
to ringmaster: by the way, the RSV also uses the word decree in Jer 19. And there's no double-standard on my part at all. You're just trying to talk yourself out of the fact that God clearly said that He didn't decree this evil act because you can't bring yourself to accept that God permitted the act "AND" man has free will.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Hey Lou, great video brother. I found what Doctor White said extremely disturbing. It also made no sense what so ever. I thought The Lord demanded the death penalty for rapists? So The Lord directly decreed the rape and then demands the death of the rapist? Huh? What? This I know for sure. The Lord certainly did not decree for Dr. White to say what he said. That is all on him. Dr. White sounds like one of Job's buddies to me. We know what The Lord thought of their counsel.
JKODarthrat 3 years ago
Fourth time ingnoring my question!
I never argued for the forordination of sin. It is absolutely rediculous to assume I did.
I'm just pointing out you're flawed reasoning and double standard.
You have not given a single explanation for why "Nor did it come into my mind" is against forordination but not against foreknowledge. Unless you exegete it to say that, you're using a double standard. This is my fifth time making this point, so it is you who does not want to change your mind.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to ringmaster: Because God knowing all things from the beginning to the end is a given (see Isa 46:10).
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Third time ignoring my question. How do you interpret "Nor did it come into my mind" as being against forordination but not against foreknowledge? That's called a double standard.
I have my reasons, but I'm consistent in not using this as a proof text against God foreordaining sin because I would have to apply it to foreknowledge.
By the way, neither the KJV,NKJV,NASB,nor NIV use the word "decree" in Jer.19. They use "speak". You should have mentioed that i your video.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to ringermaster: No, you're saying that God said that He didn't know! LOL. I'm just trying to help you understand what God meant by what He said. First of all, I'm sure that we both agree that Open Theism is false. Secondly, why don't you believe what God Himself said, that He did not decree the horrible evil which He spoke about in Jer 19:4-5? To be honest, I believe that this is something personal that you need to settle with Him.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
You ignored my point twice! LOL! I'm asking you a question, I'm not arguing for the decree of sin or Open Theism. LOL. Im asking why you don't take that verse as saying God doesn't know the future. LOL!
You think this is something personal? LOL! I haven't stated anything. I've been asking you questions and you ignore them. LOL!
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
The argument against Open Theism would be found by going to Ps.139.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 3
I could give all sorts of verses against open theism, the point is we must give a sound reason for how we interpret "Nor did it enter my mind". If it is not against foreknowledge, then why is it against forordination.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
And as Louis explains, no doctrine is based on a single verse. An Open Theist could use that verse to defend his view, but once Ps.139 is looked at, the verse has to be seen in its correct context of God not WANTING those sacrifices (see Lev.19)
All false theology ignores the correct hermeneutics of comparing scripture with scripture and not relying on any single verse for a major doctrine (1Cor.2:13, 2Pe.1:20)
edwardpf123 3 years ago 8
Hey buddy.
JKODarthrat 3 years ago
However, my question to Lou was how does that verse teach against forordination and not foreknowledge.
False theology also comes from ignoring the immediate context. My whole point is that Lou took the verse to mean what he wanted it to mean. He says it means God doesn't forordain sin, but by HIS standard, it should go against forknowledge as well.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
No, the verse in its context is very clear by the words that surround it. God had made it clear in other passages (Lev.19) that He HATED human sacrifice, so what the Jews were doing was an abomination to him. So, the Biblical context of that verse is very clear, God never intended such an evil act to happen and those doing it were doing it DESPITE what God wanted. Now, God was PERMITTING it to happen, but they were going to reap the consequencs of their evil acts.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 4
Why do you both try to debate me concerning forordination? I'm not arguing for it. So please, stop. I'm making one single point.
"No, the verse in its context is very clear by the words that surround it."
This doesn't change anything. Taking it in the immediate context does not get rid of an Open Theistic interpretation. I'm not arguing for forordination of sin! I'm saying Lou is incosistent in his use of "nor did it enter my mind."
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
I am not debating you for forordination, I am defending the use of that verse as a legimate proof text against the Calvinist view of the Decrees. Now,if some Open Theist wants to use that verse as a proof-text, he is free to do so, but he will have to explain the entire context of the passage as well. So, because someone can use a misuse a verse doesn't mean it can't be used correctly.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 4
The problem is I keep stating that no good reason has been given for why "nor did it enter my mind" means no forordination, but there is still foreknowledge. At one point Lou uses this sentence alone for a proof text. I think that is wrong.
A straight reading means that God didn't know what was going to happen. Obviously we reject that, but the quesition remains "what does it mean?" Lou says it's that God didn't forordain sin, but I ask why. Why does this verse ALONE work as a proof text?
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
No, the problem is that you are taking an idiom and reading it as literal. Much like the Roman Catholics do with Jn.6:53-56. Context will tell you if a passage should be read literally or as a figure of speech. 'It never came into my mind' is simply speaking to the fact that God would never EVEN think of commanding such a thing, not that He didn't always know they would do it. The statement that He 'never commanded it' puts the rest of the statement in its correct context (Lev.18:21)
edwardpf123 3 years ago 4
"you are taking an idiom and reading it as literal."
This is why I don't like talking to you. I'm not arguing for any particular reading! You and Lou keep accusing me of that. Asserting that it's an idiom needs EVIDENCE. Are there examples that this phrase is an idiom in the Bible or other literature? Or do you assume? The context doesn't help. And again, my problem is with how Lou asserts it as a proof text. My question remains: "Why does this verse ALONE work as a proof text?"
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
If you read the passage, it is very clear. Lou uses the entire sentence which shows that God did not Decree the Jews to murder their babies since it was against His WILL.
Now, that verse is very clear that God did not command the Jews to do what they were doing, so the Jews were doing something AGAINST God's directive will.
No, a straight reading doesn't mean God didn't know what was going on, it means that God did not WANT to happen that was happening.
So, it wasn't God's will.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 6
I tried to make a simple point, and this is taking far too much explaining. I made my point repeatedly and I thought I made it quite well, you obviously feel otherwise. I'm sorry this was such a waste of time.
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
No, the point that you are trying to make is not a valid one, based on the correct reading of the verse. The english of the verse is very clear, and 'neither came into my mind' has nothing to do with God actually not knowing about it.
The beginning of the sentence makes that clear,
'which I commanded not, nor spake it nor did it come into my mind', the words after 'which I commanded not' simply reinforces the statement that IT WAS AGAINST GOD'S WILL.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Lou, As we have already discussed in the room on Paltalk, the translations of the passages where it says "nor did it come to MY MIND" actually say in Hebrew "nor did it come upon MY HEART". (Hebr. lo altah AL LIBI) Meaning it was NOT Gods pleasure AT ALL that Israel did what it did. This truly distroys calvinisms claims. I cant believe that Calvinists believe that God takes pleasure in displeasing Himself!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
to ringmaster: I'm not saying it; you're saying it. LOL. All God was saying there is that He was not the ordainer of those evil acts.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
"I'm not saying it; you're saying it. LOL"
I'm arguing that for you to be consistent, the text says it. I'm not saying it, I'm just asking why you don't interpret it as God not knowing the event before hand.
Jer. 7:31 "Nor did it come into My mind."
How would an Open Theist be wrong in saying this supports God not knowing the future?
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to ringmaster: No, not at all. God knew what would happen beforehand. He simply decided to permit it.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
But the text says it never entered His mind. To be consistent wouldn't you have to say He neither ordained it nor knew it?
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
So don't those Jeremiah verses support the idea that God is ignorant of the future?
ringmasterzeppelin 3 years ago
to prchdaword: (cont) and I have even less respect for a guy that likes hiding behind a youtube video proclaiming how smart he is. I'm only going to tell you this once: If we debate, I'll hang you out to dry.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
I have several debates already under my belt that you can view on my website Mr. Ruggerio and am not worried about being "hung out to dry". If we do engage in debate I engage in informative debate which is intended to inform the audience and let them decide rather than engage in superficial debate. I can tell you that if you don't care which "brand of Calvinism" you are defending, I can tell you you will find yourself beating the air. Ask the questions and I'll answer the best I can ;)
prchdaword 3 years ago
logically, aren't you behind a youtube video as well? What's with the anger?
prchdaword 3 years ago
I think Louis is really refuting the doctrines espoused in Hyper-Calvinism here ie: The child rape scenario.I do not deny that we make free-will choices,however,that never negates God's sovereignty over the ultimate outcome of any situation.Anyhow,Moses,"ENGAGE" I want to see you "Hung out to dry" LOL :)
tezkingkong 3 years ago
that's cool...but if he's refuting Hyper-Calvinism/Determinism, isn't it rather shady to call that Calvinism when it is not? There is certainly no excuse for not knowing the difference with all the books that Mr. Ruggerio has read on the subject as I have pretty much read all those same works and others
prchdaword 3 years ago
Yes,indeed,but shady,come on,you're too kind.How about a little disingenuous perhaps :)
tezkingkong 3 years ago
alright alright...I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but you certainly have a point and he even claims to not care about knowing "what brand of Calvinism" I represent which basically means he doesn't want to really delve into and argue the issues. He just wants to throw a blanket argument and hope it fools enough people to fall for his arguments
prchdaword 3 years ago
Yeah,I'm guessin' he's experienced some sort of theophany & is setting out on a "theologically lite" crusade,looks like a 1st account.
tezkingkong 3 years ago
yeah...I think he's got some anger issues when people challenge his understanding too. Notice how quick he flared up when I questioned his definitions and asked questions about the consistency of his view. Shouldn't he have welcomed those rather than get his feathers all ruffled?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Yep.Proverbs 27:17.
tezkingkong 3 years ago
Bro. Moses, he is always this way. Just ignore him and keep responding via video.
YoungCalvinist08 3 years ago
yea...seems to be the thing to do
prchdaword 3 years ago
to prchdaword: Listen preach, I'm not going to play games with you. You're right, I DON'T know which brand of Calvinism you are defending. Personally, I don't care. Like I said before, after I'm done with this 12 Lesson series we'll talk and perhaps set up a debate between you and I. But I highly recommend that you do some homeowork before you engage me in a live debate. I don't have much respect for Reformers who like asking questions but don't like providing any answers (cont)
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
to prchdaword: You wrote "the rhetoric game doesn't work Mr. Ruggerio. You are clearly using Jeremiah to support your own view, a view that Jeremiah himself did not even seek to establish in the context of his own work. We call that Eisegesis." My response: I wasn't using Jeremiah's words to support my views. God Himself said that He didn't decree the evil. Why don't you believe Him? I do! I'm glad you're keeping busy, You'll stay busy. I have about 15-20 more videos to post. Have a nice day.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
and what of the passage in Isaiah in which God says "I create darkness...."
prchdaword 3 years ago
To prchdaword: thanks for responding to my videos. Those verses and passages in the book of Jeremiah showing that God did not decree that the children of Israel offer their son and daughters through the fire of Baal really bother you, don't they? The fact that God does not tempt with evil as James says in James 1:13 also completely refute your position.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
They do not refute my position at all because are you arguing from ignorance of my position in the first place. Calvinism distinguishes between the decretive will of God and God's preceptive will, both established in Scripture. You are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism/Fatalism and not Reformed Calvinism. Winning against a strawman is hardly an accomplishment on your part Mr. Ruggerio
prchdaword 3 years ago
This video like so many others try to discern light from darkness, by comparison. We should rather become familiar with the truth in all His ways and not compare, because comparison just leads to debate.
When we are familiar with Truth in all His ways, we know instantly when we encounter error.
rstTEX 3 years ago
a big amen again brother!
Sukikaki2 3 years ago 4
wow that was a wonderful exegesis of scripure very encouraging god bless you lou
laura686979 3 years ago 4
Refarding your comments on Eph 1:11, where does that verse say that God decrees and ordains all things? I don't see the words "decree" or "ordain" in there at all!
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
the word "predestined" is pretty clear, and how are they predestined? According to the "free will of man"? No. They are predestined ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF HIM WHO WORKS ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL. Not "His will and the wills of the creatures"...God's will alone is what determines the purpose. It should be noted that the word "work" here is the same word that is used of God's working to raise Christ from the dead; it is his activity providentially guiding "all things"
prchdaword 3 years ago
to prchdaword: Don't take it up with me. Take it up with the prophet Jeremiah who quotes the words of the LORD Himself
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
the rhetoric game doesn't work Mr. Ruggerio. You are clearly using Jeremiah to support your own view, a view that Jeremiah himself did not even seek to establish in the context of his own work. We call that Eisegesis
prchdaword 3 years ago
you are not being consistent at all. You said that God is sovereign and rules all his creation but now you say that man's "free will" is allowed to live outside the bounds of God's decrees. Isn't man's "free will" part of God's creation? How does God exert his sovereignty over the "free will" of man? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that God has created sub-gods whom he cannot truly reign over because their wills are outside the scope of his sovereignty? Or is God a sovereign in name only?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Was the unjust murder of Jesus by the Jews sin?
Certainly it was as it is condemned in Scripture as a crime against the Messiah.
But doesn't the Bible say that Christ was delievered up to be killed the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God(Acts 2:23)?"For truly against your holy servant Jesus...both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel...to do whatever YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE DETERMINED BFORE TO BE DONE."(Acts4:27-28)
The greatest sin decreed by God
prchdaword 3 years ago
the"absolute extreme"or the consistent application of the clear teaching of the word?
Determinism is hardly what Calvinist hold to. Compatibolism is the more consistent term with what Calvinist believe. Determinism is a stoic fatalism of sorts.
Yes,God decrees and ordains "all things" (Eph. 1:11)which would include sin and righteousness. There is nothing in the text that limits the words "all things" in that text. If God is in control as you assert, isn't he in control of sin?
prchdaword 3 years ago