If you don’t agree with the traditional Reformed or Calvinist view of such things, that is entirely your prerogative, you are welcome to do so. But keep in mind that personal dislike of a doctrine, especially one with obvious biblical warrant, is not logical proof against it.
I suppose it was equally vile that God intended what Joseph’s brothers did to him, or that God hardened Pharoah’s heart, or that God directs a King’s heart wherever he chooses, or that the sins against Christ were according to the purpose and foreknowledge of God, but like it or not, it is the language the Bible uses. You can disagree with us Reformed types and our plain reading of such texts, but do remember that personal distaste is not a basis for an argument.
Entirely a straw man argument, as Reformed Christians who affirm the predestination of everyon’s actions, including those surrounding inspiration, completely deny this. As I think you should well know, no?
But it is interesting that people’s objections to plenary verbal inspiration are essentially arguments against Calvinism/predestination in general. It seems that those who are able to understand the compatibilism that exists between God’s predestination and genunine free will, can understand how God in his providence, predestination, and Holy Spirit could indeed work in such a way that David’s freely chosen words are simultaneously the very words the Holy Spirit intended to communicate as his special revelation.
But if one can’t understand compatibilism, and insists (wrongly) that any predestination or predetermination by God of an event in any way whatsoever de facto means that one is a puppet, then of course, I can see how one could similarly not understand our contention that God could intend every word being written and yet simultaneously in no way interfere with the freely chosen words of the inspired writers.
Very interesting indeed, where this conversation went…
