Re: Was Joseph a Calvinist?
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:18 pm
EXACTLY. God doesn't induce people to do evil that good may come. Rather he brings good OUT OF the evil that people do.Matt wrote:They did evil. God responded with good.
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
EXACTLY. God doesn't induce people to do evil that good may come. Rather he brings good OUT OF the evil that people do.Matt wrote:They did evil. God responded with good.
Hi Paidion,Paidion wrote:EXACTLY. God doesn't induce people to do evil that good may come. Rather he brings good OUT OF the evil that people do.Matt wrote:They did evil. God responded with good.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It's as if you haven't read the thread. I just re-read the thread to make sure and I counted 3 separate times where I specifically said Joseph's words in 45 and 50 were true... not false. You even responded to those quotes. And yet, in this post, you're still claiming for some reason that I think Joseph said something wrong.robbyyoung wrote:Hi Matt,
I didn’t say the brothers had no alternatives, I said their ultimate response was God ordained, that's if you take Joseph’s words at face-value in Gen 45 & 50. But don’t you know your argument contends that Joseph made fallacious statements against God? So to disprove a Calvinistic proclivity, you jump to making Joseph sin against God by making false statements? The Joseph story invokes no such sinful behavior on Joseph’s part, but your argument causes more harm than good against Joseph’s character. Your “belief” is bringing unnecessary and unwarranted baggage to the story.
So, if Joseph didn’t lie and sin against God by ascribing these actions to Him, a Calvinistic propensity stands without further scriptural gymnastics that weakens Joseph’s character. I’m glad I can be of some assistance in “sharpening” your thoughts.
But seriously, can you defend the dilemma you caused that makes Joseph sin against God, which is alien to the context of the story?
Blessings.
Ok my friend, I apologize for my muddled response and will try to find common ground in your understanding of the text. Let me unpack this by stating:mattrose wrote: I'll try again. I do not think Joseph's words are fallacious. I think his statements are true. I think you and others tend to misinterpret them. What you are calling 'face value' is, in my opinion, bad interpretation.
Thank you for continuing in dialoguerobbyyoung wrote:Ok my friend, I apologize for my muddled response and will try to find common ground in your understanding of the text
Thank you for laying out your position with clarity.Let me unpack this by stating:
a) God can prevent evil, allow evil, or be the causing agent of calamity/harm (Isa. 45:7)
b) God allowed the brothers’ evil against Joseph
c) But, God prevented the brothers evil to kill Joseph
d) Thus, God caused specified harm to come upon Joseph because it was granted that he suffer for God’s purpose (Philippians 1:29)
I take no real issue with this paragraph. Your wording seems more careful here.Matt, I agree that God was not the author of the brothers sin, but He was the agent that granted Joseph the privilege to suffer for His name sake—allowing the brothers’ evil, in part, to run its course. According to Joseph, God wanted him in Egypt. The dreams most definitely facilitated God’s plan.
I have no problem believing God played a role in keeping Joseph alive (though God was more likely influencing plan B than C based on its content). In any case, saving a life seems like a God thing to do. The Ishmaelites passing through is probably what gave Judah the idea for plan C.Now I do believe that God determined the brothers to sell Joseph into Egypt. I also believe that God prevented the brothers from killing him as planned. I do not believe it was a coincidence that the Ishmeelites showed up as they were conspiring to murder their brother. In the case that I am presenting, this makes Gen 45:5 stand on its own merit. But I could be wrong.
I guess I'd request to see your definitions of 'ordain' & 'sovereignty'. That might be where we are most at odds.Did God ordain all of this? Yes, for He is sovereign; but, No, regarding the brothers’ sin. If Calvinistic principles are present in one form or another, I guess you might object to this, but after further review, I do see God’s foreknowledge at play when reading Gen 45:5. I'm no Calvinist, but I strongly believe that God's sovereignty trumps all things.
Agreed, I could have further delineated Isa. 45:7 to a category of its own. But to clarify point (a), I was in no way ascribing wickedness or sin to God. That’s why I substituted calamity/harm to indicted God’s righteous judgments, as you correctly stated. But, thanks for ensuring the point wasn’t missed in the discussion.In regards to "a"... I agree that God can prevent or allow evil. The Isaiah 45:7 passage, it seems to me, is about judgment. Judgment is NOT causing evil. It is a response to evil. Because of this important distinction it really doesn't belong under the same lettered point ("a") on your list. The whole list is about evil. God's judgment is righteous, not evil.
Ok, but my support hinges on Joseph’s claim in Gen 45:5. If God indeed sent him to Egypt, as he claims, that’s the certainty needed in text to support the interpretation. In other words, we don’t have a text that says “God did not send me”, but we do have a text stating “God did send me”. Therefore, God must have prevented the brothers from killing Joseph, thus creating the circumstance for Joseph to be in Egypt. This would require God’s sovereignty to obtain a righteous outcome.In regards to "c"... we simply can't say with certainty. The text doesn't declare God's intervention in those cases (PLAN B & PLAN C... plan "A" being to kill Joseph)
Fair enough, this would be more appropriate.There's no real reason to suggest that God "caused" harm to come to Joseph. Why not just use the word "Allowed"? It seems to me that to say God "Caused" it simply muddies the water. It's poorer communication.
Our understanding of ordain and sovereignty is not at odds. You did a fine job defining the terms. I still see Gen 45:5 expressing a hard truth in what God determined for Joseph, but without micro-managing every iota of circumstances to place him in Egypt. God can do this with the highest regard to flexibility among free-will agents.I guess I'd request to see your definitions of 'ordain' & 'sovereignty'. That might be where we are most at odds.
This sounds as if you believe that God is the author of evil—at least sometimes. Well... I believe John who wrote:Robby wrote:God absolutely induces people to do evil, like lie for instance and as a result get a bunch of people killed (1 Kings 22:20-23).I wrote:God doesn't induce people to do evil that good may come. Rather he brings good OUT OF the evil that people do.
This seems rather agreeable. I have no problem imagining God putting the idea in Reuben's mind to rescue Joseph. Nor do I really have a problem with God putting the idea in Judah's mind to sell him rather than kill him (especially given that God knew that He would bless Joseph and raise him up from slavery).robbyyoung wrote:God must have prevented the brothers from killing Joseph...
I still see Gen 45:5 expressing a hard truth in what God determined for Joseph, but without micro-managing every iota of circumstances to place him in Egypt. God can do this with the highest regard to flexibility among free-will agents.
Blessings.