Jordan

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz @theo_bruv Praying brother!

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@logosofagape @FightofFaith Hmm, I need to ponder this some more. Thanks for responding so fast!

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@writeontheedg3 @hookskat Can you elaborate?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@logosofagape @FightofFaith It seems this cannot be the answer. Would this mean that Agape love requires suffering to exist? If this is true wouldn’t it mean either that suffering will exist for eternity or that agape love is temporary?

[Grafted Theology @GraftedTheology]

Did You Know:
Although the Ammonites killed Uriah, David is still held responsible.

In 2 Samuel 12:9, the prophet Nathan confronts David:
“You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword… you have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.”

But David wasn’t even on the battlefield. The Ammonites killed Uriah, and Joab orchestrated it. So why does God say David killed him?

Because David decreed the outcome. He gave the order. Joab and the Ammonites were the means - what some might call “secondary causes.” But responsibility didn’t fall on them. It fell on David, because the one who decrees the evil is accountable for it.

This raises a serious question for divine determinism. The Westminster Confession says God “freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1) but also insists God is “not the author of sin.” The tension is often explained by invoking “secondary causes” or divine mystery.

But the case of David and Uriah exposes a flaw: Secondary causes do not absolve the one who decrees the evil. God held David responsible - not Joab or the Ammonites.

Some appeal to events like the crucifixion of Christ or the betrayal of Joseph to justify the idea that God can decree evil for good. But these passages don’t require God to causally determine evil actions or desires.

Joseph says in Gen. 50:20, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”
Acts 2:23 says Jesus was delivered up by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.”

In both cases, the evil is charged to the human actors. God brings redemption through their actions, not by causing their intentions.

I believe a libertarian view of free will better fits these accounts:
• God permits sin and evil, but does not cause it.
• People are free to make choices and are accountable for them.
• God sovereignly works through those free acts without decreeing them.

The issue isn’t whether God can use evil for good - He can. The issue is whether God effectually and meticulously decrees every evil act, which if held to the same standard as David, would appear to make Him morally responsible.

If decreeing evil made David guilty, why wouldn't the same apply to God under determinism?

Mystery doesn’t solve this - it just hides the contradiction.

P.S. – Please be respectful if you choose to engage with this post. If you disagree, I kindly ask that you don’t respond with a list of isolated prooftexts (prooftexting can be a fallacy when it ignores context). I hope you’re enjoying this series of “Did You Know” posts, which are meant to offer interesting, or perhaps less commonly discussed, biblical insights.

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@troywojick @logosofagape What if neither salvation nor justification are a one time event and both have ongoing and future aspects? Though not equivalent in meaning, is it possible they both go together and you can’t have one without the other?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@rootcausesleuth What would be truly amazing is if God not only wanted to save everyone, but was also wise enough to accomplish it without coercion. That seems to be what the Bible indicates

https://t.co/dzUiI2gdO6

[Andrew Rillera @AndrewRillera]

If I say "*all* have sinned & are being justified as a gift by God's grace" you'd know I'm clearly a universalist, but if I point out that Paul said this in Rom 3:23–24, then it's suddenly "underdetermined/ambiguous."🧵

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@tim_theoverlap I agree! But aren’t you an annihilationist? If so, how does that work?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz Also, I still find your argument strange. You are saying God desires something he can easily accomplish and yet he somehow doesn’t get what he wants?

It’s like someone saying they want to have Chipotle for dinner but they don’t want to drive to get it. Do they really want it?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz I understand if you don’t want to go back and forth any longer. But if you do still want to chat, do you think God’s love is maximal? If so, how can he love some people less than others? Wouldn’t that definitionally mean His love is NOT maximal?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz You seem to essentially be saying that “he wants it, but not very much, or at least not as much as for specific individuals.” And that’s just doesn’t seem very intellectually or biblically coherent.

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz There is no “have to”. It’s just that you are claiming God has the ability and the desire for something to happen and yet that thing doesn’t happen.

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz He desires their salvation but not enough to give them repentance and faith?

It seems you are trying to say: God could save them if He wanted to, and He does want to, but he doesn’t save them.

I hope you can see why this is confusing

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz Or when you refer to “conditional salvation” are you just trying to say God desires all who believe to be saved?

In that case, he doesn’t actually desire the salvation of all. Is this what you are trying to say?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz He isn’t required to absolutely will the salvation of all.

But you are claiming God desires something that He doesn’t achieve. So I guess I’m wondering why you think God doesn’t get what you claim he desires (the salvation of all)

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz Praying for you brother!

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@DoctrinalPossum Clearly the P need nuance though. But the penalty for sin is death. Jesus died. Therefore, he took some form of penalty… but it wasn’t “instead” of us. We still did, and are called to die WITH Christ

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@DoctrinalPossum The P isn’t the problem. It’s the S that’s the issue. I can’t recommend “Lamb of the Free” enough.

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@ReformedCaio What’s the context I’m missing? Why the snark?

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz @OzMarquezz I’d really appreciate your thoughts on my question here

[Jordan @Jordan_Col_1_20]

@OzMarquezz I’m still a bit confused. He wants them to repent, but not enough to give them a repentant heart?

He loves them enough to die for them, but not enough to save them?