Which does not mean determine
There is no evidence God determined the brothers desire to harm Joseph
Taking credit for your salvation
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
There is no evidence God determined the brothers desire to harm Joseph
Not that I saw
it concerns whether you take the way out
and has nothing to do with the fact God cannot determine you to a sin he promised to give you a way to avoid
Johann
Active Member
Tag @TibiasDad
The Rogue Tomato
Active Member
Johann
Active Member
He is seeking attention-playing the devil's advocate brother and it is clear for all to see. My time is precious.
all that means is he intended to bring good out of the act
There is still no evidence God determined their desire to harm Joseph
Again even chosing determine the determination is to bring good out of the act
Again still no evidence God determined the brothers desire to harm Joseph
The Rogue Tomato
Active Member
You meant it for evil. What is "it"? The selling of Joseph into slavery.
God meant it for good. What is "it"? The selling of Joseph into slavery.
And God determined to bring good out of it
But no evidence has been presented that God determined their desire to harm Joseph. (actually he restrained it a bit)
Johann
Active Member
- Joseph's Dreams: Joseph has dreams that indicate his future authority over his brothers, which stirs jealousy and resentment among them (Genesis 37:5-11).
- Brothers' Plot: Joseph's brothers conspire to kill him but ultimately decide to sell him into slavery instead (Genesis 37:18-28).
- Joseph's Journey: Joseph is taken to Egypt, where he eventually rises to prominence in Potiphar's house and later in Pharaoh's court (Genesis 39-41).
- Reconciliation: Years later, Joseph encounters his brothers again during a famine, and they come to Egypt seeking food. Through a series of events, Joseph reveals himself to them and reconciles with them (Genesis 42-45).
- God's Providence: Throughout the story, God's providential care and guidance are evident. Despite the brothers' intentions to harm Joseph, God works through the circumstances to accomplish His purposes. Joseph himself recognizes this divine providence when he tells his brothers, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Genesis 50:20, NIV).
So--in summary, while the text does not explicitly state that God determined the brothers to harm Joseph, it does depict God's providential involvement in the events, ultimately using them for His redemptive purposes.
You really seem to have a problem with God's sovereignty-God doesn't need us, we need God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rockson
Active Member
Here's one way of thinking of it. One's faith is like the keys which one puts in the ignition of a car. It has no power in and of itself but it activates the power. Faith is the showing of God what you choose to believe . Believing with ones heart and saying with one's mouth unto salvation it not a power but rather a signally to God he can release his power, LIFE and grace.
You and sin are part of creation. Keep ignoring the point.
Somebody needs to familiarize himself with the different types of causes. When you do your profound error will cease to exist.
The Rogue Tomato
Active Member
Excellent
Johann
Active Member
Determine
1. krino (G2919), primarily "to separate," hence, "to be of opinion, approve, esteem," Rom_14:5, also "to determine, resolve, decree," is used in this sense in Act_3:13; Act_20:16; Act_25:25; Act_27:1; 1Co_2:2; 2Co_2:1; Tit_3:12. See CONDEMN, JUDGE, JUDGMENT, LAW, B, No.
2. horizo (G3724) denotes "to bound, to set a boundary" (Eng., "horizon"); hence, "to mark out definitely, determine"; it is translated "to determine" in Luk_22:22, of the foreordained pathway of Christ; Act_11:29, of a "determination" to send relief; Act_17:26, where it is used of fixing the bounds of seasons. In Act_2:23 the verb is translated "determinate," with reference to counsel. Here the verbal form might have been adhered to by the translation "determined"; that is to say, in the sense of "settled."
In Rom_1:4 it is translated "declared," where the meaning is that Christ was marked out as the Son of God by His resurrection and that of others (see under DECLARE). In Act_10:42 and Act_17:31 it has its other meaning of "ordain," that is, "to appoint by determined counsel." In Heb 4.7, it is translated "limiteth," but preferably in the RV, "defineth," with reference to a certain period; here again it approaches its primary meaning of marking out the bounds of see DECLARE, No. 9, LIMIT ORDAIN.
3. proorizo (G4309), pro, "beforehand," and No. 2, denotes "to mark out beforehand, to determine before, foreordain"; in Act_4:28, KJV, "determined before," RV, "foreordained"; so the RV in 1Co_2:7, KJV, "ordained", in Rom_8:29-30 and Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11, KJV, "predestinate," RV, "foreordain." see ORDAIN, Note (1), PREDESTINATE.
4. epiluo (G1956), lit., "to loosen upon," denotes "to solve, expound," Mar_4:34; "to settle," as of a controversy, Act_19:39, KJV, "it shall be determined," RV, "it shall be settled." see EXPOUND, SETTLE.
5. diaginosko (G1231), besides its meaning "to ascertain exactly," Act_23:15, was an Athenian law term signifying "to determine," so used in Act_24:22, RV, "determine"; KJV, "know the uttermost of."
6. tasso (G5021): see APPOINT, No. 5.
Note: Boulomai, "to be minded, to purpose," is translated "determined" in Act_15:37; RV, was minded. See MINDED, No. 2.
Vine's Dictionary.
The Rogue Tomato
Active Member
And Jesus said to them, `Through your want of faith; for verily I say to you, if ye may have faith as a grain of mustard, ye shall say to this mount, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible to you...
that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing;
What [is] the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?
But say may some one, Thou hast faith, and I have works, shew me thy faith out of thy works, and I will shew thee out of my works my faith:
This is actually a good example of why I abandoned free willism. I tried to write a treatise on free will in salvation and every time I came up with a "good" analogy, I thought of a scripture to defeat it. I learned that theology by analogy is flawed. It was still a year or two before I started to understand election in scripture.
civic
Active Member
It still looks like you don’t understand election or free will
TibiasDad
Active Member
Which means that God, in his omniscience, knew it was going to happen ahead of time and his allowance was purposeful.
Doug
Rockson
Active Member
I don't even have a clue what you're trying to say by quoting these verses. Are you trying to say Jesus was saying it's wrong to have FAITH to remove mountains? In your first quote it was about they couldn't get a person delivered and Jesus was telling them then needed to know how to function in FAITH properly. By quoting at the end from 1 Cor 13 that doesn't mean it is wrong or improper to have faith to remove a mountain....he just said make sure you've got your LOVE walk going along with it. So what's your point?
So you're gutting out even the need to have FAITH? Is this your doctrine?
No offence but I think you need to get back to the drawing board and make a reassessment. You post really sounds like gibberish.
TibiasDad
Active Member
1) None of these passages defeat a free will argument or analogy.
2) You have not identified the references for these passages, nor have you shown the context in which they were used.
3) All of the passages refer to faith in reference to human possession or lack thereof, or, to human usage or non-usage of said possession.
4) None of them say, imply, or suggest that said faith was or must be given to man by God in order to use it, or that man cannot have faith unless it is given him to use.
5) In reference to your stylistic choice of presentation, your choice of using what appears to be a literal translation is distracting and the source is not identified. One wonders, given no insight as to the purpose of such usage, why such obscure syntax is offered as proof for any other reason than to obscure the actual intention of these words in their contextual setting.
I honestly don’t know how you could possibly think this communicates anything intelligently or logically. There is no stated premise, and yet you say this is the reason why you concluded that free will is unsustainable. As stated, your argument is meaningless and obscure in its purpose.
I do not mean to offend or belittle you personally, but I have pondered this argument and tried to follow your succeeding responses to it to in order to make sense of it, but to no avail. I would hope for better things from you.
Doug
