ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
However, in Christ, we are free from the law.

When we are justified and declared righteous in Christ, the Law cannot condemn us. This does not mean that we become subsequently lawless savages like the pagans nor does it mean we become antinomian.

Don't confuse legalistic laws followed in the flesh with God's unchanging moral law fulfilled in and by the Spirit in us. Loving obedience is Pauline (Rom. 6:13-16) and Petrine (I Peter 1:13-16), so chill.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I did contradict myself with poor wording, which I just edited. Instead of using the word "if," I have changed it to correctly say "the day" he disobeyed. God was not surprised, but knew Adam would fall short of the law and God's glory.

Thus, Adam could not have done otherwise.

God is the first cause of all things, including secondary causes.

God caused man.
Man caused sin.

Thus, we must conclude, based upon your statement, that God is the cause of all evil.

Scripture clearly says Adam is the cause of sin and death in Romans 5:12.

Congratulations. You just refuted your previous statement.

Hellfire.

So, in your theology, the devil wins, and God has to start over?

Creation is redeemed, both by God's grace in Jesus Christ, and by holy justice executed by Jesus Christ.

So, the parts of the earth that have been cursed in the fall will remain cursed? In that case, God truly fails.

I do not believe the Bible teaches God anticipated perfection from A&E, else they would have been equal to God. And God by definition is uncreate. God knew when He created, He was not creating perfect gods, but rather, limited creatures with limited capacities. They were made of dust, not Spirit.

A&E did not have the qualities of God. They were flesh and spirit. They were finite. They were not omniscient nor omnipotent. They were (and are) wholly other than God and very much limited in ways that God is not.

So, this statement is easily and demonstrably false. Even if Adam and Eve would not have sinned, they would not have been equal to God in any respect.

In fact, if you actually read Genesis, you'll find that in sinning, Adam and Eve became like God in knowing good and evil. So, you're directly contradicting Scripture.

The perfect humanity God had in mind, could only be created in Christ. Ephesians 2:10

Umm.. Ephesians 2:10 says nothing of the sort. It only speaks to our condition after the fall.

Yes. Adam demonstrated that creatures made of dust cannot function as moral agents successfully, but fall short of the glory of God. However, before God created man, knowing where the human nature of man would lead, God established the Covenant amongst the Godhead, to provide not only salvation for the creatures who would fall, but accomplish access into the heavenlies for their human offspring, in and through the Son of God becoming a Man Himself.

Again, you make God the author of evil, and an injust god at that. Think about it. God creates Adam, and gives him a command that, if broken, will result in untold evil, suffering and death, and then programs him to break that command.

Seriously?

The Father chooses who will be drawn to Christ.

Not scriptural.

The Son died for those the Father chose.

And everyone else.

The Holy Spirit calls those whom the Father chose and those for whom Christ died.

Again, unscriptural.

You are omitting the role of the Holy Spirit in the order of salvation. Before any sinner can spiritually hear and comprehend the gospel, he must be born again by the Holy Spirit of God, and gifted with faith to believe, and the spiritual capacity to repent of sin.

Again, unscriptural. Notice that in your theology, here, you've provided zero Scriptural evidence.

Yes, the Holy Spirit plays a role in convicting of sin, and after one believes, sealing and regenerating that person, but you have your pieces all out of order, because you don't understand John 3.

The presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit guarantees that the regenerated sinner will respond in belief and repentance. That is His role and His power at work, converting the sinner to saint. But God still gets all the glory of this. Man cannot believe and repent on his own, due to the totally corrupting effects of sin on the human nature.

Again, no scriptural support.

Through the Godly deliverance of the children of God:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans 8:19-21

And the sons of God are those who believe.

The "children of God" prove to be those elect in Christ Jesus, who will reconcile all things to Himself, by Him . . .Colossians 1:19-20

Keep reading.. lol

21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.​

Notice "IF". There is a condition of salvation, and the onus is placed upon US to believe.

(Again, your own Scripture cites betray you.)

Any one whose sins have not been propitiated on the cross, are those who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life. These will be judged and suffer eternal hellfire according to God's holy justice.

So, you're the universalist, now? Remember the sins of the whole world have been propitiated (1 John 2:2)

All those in Christ are delivered, the creation is reconciled to God for Christ, and all wicked men, spirits, and death will be judged and destroyed by Christ.

And the difference is the condition Christ asks of us: Believe (John 6:27-29)

Not all men are condemned by sin. The Man, Jesus Christ was exempt. Thus, even this verse is not universal in scope.

This is truly sad. You must believe that Christ sinned, then (Romans 3:23), or does the exemption for Christ in the discussion man's condition only occur when you want it to occur?

You're simply being deliberately obtuse, here.

The only way sinners are declared "righteous" is through legal imputation of Christ's righteousness to their record with God, and the only basis for God to legally declare guilty men pardoned, is through vicarious justification for their sins, which Christ accomplished in His death. Justification and imputation were both forensic accomplishments achieved, before God, on the cross. This is the definition of saving grace, which proves to be efficacious only for those for whom Christ suffered judgment and death on their behalf.

Again, unscriptural, and this conclusion is only reached because of other unscriptural assumptions Calvinists make. (notice, again, a lack of Scriptural support.)

I know, I know the Greek renderings here, but without a doubt God's grace is a gift. And without God's grace, a sinner has nothing: No justification, no faith, no repentance, no comprehension of the kingdom of God, no sanctification, conversion, assurance or hope. So arguing that faith is not technically a "gift" is nonsense. Faith is not a reality, unless the grace of God raises dead sinners from being dead in their trespasses and sins (which is the context of the teaching).

Again, unscriptural, and a lack of Scriptural support.

Grace, by definition, is favor granted. One doesn't need call grace a gift, as it is so by definition. However, the condition of receiving God's saving grace is faith. That's evident throughout scripture (John 6:44-47, John 6:27-29, Col 1:21-23, et. al.)

Oh. I read in the bible that it is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation. . . Romans 1:15-16.

However, the gospel is Christ's death, burial resurrection which brings salvation, not the technical doctrines that describe the process.

God is not the author of sin. God is the provider of our Savior. How many times does a Calvinist have to repeat his beliefs before he is heard?

Until he/she finds his/her way out of contradicting him/her self. You say that God isn't the author of sin, and then you say that God is the primary cause of sin. You speak in logical contradictions.

Faith is not a "condition," but evidence of saving grace, that produces good works.

Again, see Col 1:21-23, John 6:27-29.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Thus, we must conclude, based upon your statement, that God is the cause of all evil.

Death and evil are the consequences of sin. God is not the author of sin, but God judges wicked men by imposing evil results upon their actions, and consigning them to death.

So, the parts of the earth that have been cursed in the fall will remain cursed? In that case, God truly fails.

This is a Universalist premise.

Again, you make God the author of evil, and an injust god at that. Think about it. God creates Adam, and gives him a command that, if broken, will result in untold evil, suffering and death, and then programs him to break that command.

This is a philosophic, fatalist, premise


21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

This is a companion Scripture to James 2:14-26

Remember the sins of the whole world have been propitiated (1 John 2:2)

Look around you, Muz. Do all the people around you believe in Jesus Christ, and act forgiven? Face reality. This verse is not to be understood in a universalist sense, for not all sins have been expiated. God is still angry and full of wrath over the sins of the reprobate, and the wicked of this world still face judgment and hell. Rev. 20:11-15

And the difference is the condition Christ asks of us: Believe (John 6:27-29)

A sinner cannot and is not willing to believe, until God gives them the capacity to believe (faith) and repent, and a sinner cannot exhibit faith and repentance, until they are born again by the Holy Spirit of God. So says John 3:3

Grace, by definition, is favor granted. One doesn't need call grace a gift, as it is so by definition. However, the condition of receiving God's saving grace is faith. That's evident throughout scripture (John 6:44-47, John 6:27-29, Col 1:21-23, et. al.)

None of these verses even mention "grace." They all speak of "belief" or "faith" which, when exhibited as "grounded and steadfast" works as evidence one has truly been born from above. Faith and repentance are proof that the Holy Spirit truly indwells. And until and unless God chooses to bestow His grace upon the sinner, regeneration, faith, and repentance are unknown. And unless Jesus Christ died substitutionally for the individual, making propiation for his sins, His righteousness is not imputed to that individual, and there is no grace bestowed on that soul. That "reprobate" soul will deservedly suffer the second death for his unrelieved unbelief; never knowing the grace of God at all.

I have been reading you for several years now, and I am struck at how much more universalistic you have become in your outlook. Which verifies something I say all the time, by observing others, too.

There are only two major views of theology: universalism in one degree or another, or particularism of one degree or another. You are slipping further into a universalist mindset.

We are at complete odds, it seems. For there is no middle ground upon which we can meet and agree.

So be it . . .

Nang
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Death and evil are the consequences of sin. God is not the author of sin, but God judges wicked men by imposing evil results upon their actions, and consigning them to death.

So, you're dropping the determinist doctrine, then?

You see, on one hand, you make God the primary cause of all things good and evil, and on the other hand, you say that God imposes evil results upon the actions of men. You contradict yourself.

This is a Universalist premise.

Um... creation is more than human beings.

This is a philosophic, fatalist, premise

Which you tacitly embrace.

This is a companion Scripture to James 2:14-26

That's all you're going to say? That makes no sense. Col 1:21-23 clearly places a condition upon our ongoing status as being saved.

Look around you, Muz. Do all the people around you believe in Jesus Christ, and act forgiven? Face reality. This verse is not to be understood in a universalist sense, for not all sins have been expiated. God is still angry and full of wrath over the sins of the reprobate, and the wicked of this world still face judgment and hell. Rev. 20:11-15

I've never been a universalist. You've recognized this previously. There is a middle ground between universalism and infra/supralapsarianism. It's a semi-Augustinian position, which I hold.

A sinner cannot and is not willing to believe, until God gives them the capacity to believe (faith) and repent, and a sinner cannot exhibit faith and repentance, until they are born again by the Holy Spirit of God. So says John 3:3

You completely miss the point of John 3. Nicodemus is a JEW. Jews embrace corporate election by means of natural birth. This is how they claim to be the people of God. Jesus is only telling Nicodemus that his natural birth into the nation of Israel is insufficient, and that he needs a spiritual "birth" into the Kingdom of God. Oddly enough, this dicussion is followed by Jesus saying "For God so loved the world, that He gave his one and only son, that whosoever will beleive in him will not perish, but have everlasting life." This doesn't speak of a spiritual regeneration, but rather of placing one's faith in Christ, which, as Paul puts it in Galatians 3-4, brings Jews from being children of the slave woman to children of the promise (4:28).

None of these verses even mention "grace."

That's because I was referring to the condition of salvation.

They all speak of "belief" or "faith" which, when exhibited as "grounded and steadfast" works as evidence one has truly been born from above.

Actually, they all speak of faith as the condition of salvation, something the individual chooses.

Faith and repentance are proof that the Holy Spirit truly indwells.

That's part of their function.

And until and unless God chooses to bestow His grace upon the sinner, regeneration, faith, and repentance are unknown.

Again, that lacks any Scriptural support. John 6:44-45 clearly place the order as 1) God's drawing, 2) Person hearing, 3) Person learning, 4) Person believing, 5) Salvation.

And unless Jesus Christ died substitutionally for the individual, making propiation for his sins,

And not his sins only,but the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)

His righteousness is not imputed to that individual, and there is no grace bestowed on that soul. That "reprobate" soul will deservedly suffer the second death for his unrelieved unbelief; never knowing the grace of God at all.

technically, they are condemned for sinning, rather than for not believing, but that's another debate. You still don't see the clear Scriptural evidence that faith is the condition of salvation.

I have been reading you for several years now, and I am struck at how much more universalistic you have become in your outlook. Which verifies something I say all the time, by observing others, too.

If anything, I am less universalistic than I used to be. I used to believe that God drew everyone. I don't embrace that anymore.

There are only two major views of theology: universalism in one degree or another, or particularism of one degree or another. You are slipping further into a universalist mindset.

Again, simply untrue. The problem is that you have swung to the far reaches of particularism to the point that God is the cause of evil, sin and suffering.

We are at complete odds, it seems. For there is no middle ground upon which we can meet and agree.

So be it . . .

Nang

When you want to return to study the Scriptures, let me know.

Muz
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
When we are justified and declared righteous in Christ, the Law cannot condemn us. This does not mean that we become subsequently lawless savages like the pagans nor does it mean we become antinomian.

Don't confuse legalistic laws followed in the flesh with God's unchanging moral law fulfilled in and by the Spirit in us. Loving obedience is Pauline (Rom. 6:13-16) and Petrine (I Peter 1:13-16), so chill.
:blabla:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame

This helps me know where my logic or exegesis is wrong. Thx for your help:patrol::cheers::baby::bang:

I will consider it argumentum ad hominem and that you cannot refute my basic points that believers of all extremes (Calvinistic, Arminian, etc.) would agree on in principle.

Thx for the compliment, I think.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
This helps me know where my logic or exegesis is wrong. Thx for your help:patrol::cheers::baby::bang:

I will consider it argumentum ad hominem and that you cannot refute my basic points that believers of all extremes (Calvinistic, Arminian, etc.) would agree on in principle.

Thx for the compliment, I think.
I didn't even try to refute anything. There's no point. It's just hot air, and you never listen anyway.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Let's begin with 1 Tim 2, then.
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
In this time period, Christianity is beginning to experience persecution. We know that the letters to Timothy were written late in Paul's life, after he had been imprisoned, and possibly during his imprisonment.

Thus, the importance of Paul's plea: If the kings would believe, then persecution would end, and they would live in peace.
The prayer is specifically about praying for authority (government folks).
We cannot here, tie it into a desire for their salvation. It isn't without those parameters, just not specific to at this point.
Of course, the natural response of humans is for the destruction of one's enemies, especially those in power, but Paul presents a different perspective:
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
God desires for all to know the truth and be saved. This includes those evil kings and authorities, for Christ's ransom is for all men.
I don't disagree with this but thelo is preference, such that we must see this as a qualification upon will. I believe you stress this somewhat as well, but presupposition will drive how this plays out. For the OV, He desires but has no foreknowledge. In the traditional view, He foreknows so that we see this more as preference than a hopeful wish.
In 1 John, John is concerned with understanding who we are and who we are in Christ. 1 John 1:9 is well known, since it confirms that forgiveness is ours in Christ when we confess our sins to Him.

1 John 2 begins:
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Clearly this portion is about Christ's sacrifice, and clearly the sacrifice is universal. There simply isn't any context to suggest that "whole world" is anything other than a universal atonement.

The remainder of chapter 2 picks up the themes of chapter 1 in an ethical manner.
A quote from John Gill:
the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),
"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''
which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,
"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''
which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),
"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''
where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when
"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''
that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),
"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''
i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent (s); כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jo_2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh_17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; see Gill on Rom_3:25. The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say (w) repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous (x); sometimes incense (y); sometimes the priests' garments (z); sometimes it is the day of atonement (a); and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers (b), that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them; See Gill on 1Jo_4:10.

Now, my belief inerrancy extends to the book and pericope level. I believe that each idea in Scripture, when exegeted properly, is inerrant without the need for other portions of Scripture to be imported to change that meaning. In short, I don't refute Scripture with Scripture. Each passage as exegeted must be in harmony with every other passage of Scripture as it stands.


So, it is important not to extend the meaning of passages beyond what the author intends for them.


And these themes fit well with Jesus' teaching. In John 6:44 and 45, God enables people to come to Christ through His drawing, but only those who hear and learn from the Father come to Christ. This balance is found throughout Scripture.

The only place we see God hardening with respect to one's salvation is Israel, and that was necessary for Christ's death to occur. We see this in John 12 and Romans 11, and this is a corporate hardening, just like election to the Old Covenant was corporate (see Romans 9:1-5).

So, there you go, a more complete exegesis.

Muz
Joh 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and converted, and I should heal them."

Isa 6:9 And He said, Go, and tell this people, You hear indeed, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn back, and be healed

Fourteen times in Scripture a statement is made that God hardens someone's heart (15 if we count John 12:40 where the "He" may be read as a reference to God or perhaps to Isaiah – see Isaiah 6:9-10). Nine of those times are in relation to Pharaoh. Outside of Pharaoh, God says that he will harden the hearts of the Egyptians (Exodus 14:17), that the LORD hardened the spirit of Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deuteronomy 2:30), that it was of the LORD to harden the hearts of the northern kings in Canaan (Joshua 11:20), the prophet Isaiah asks why God has hardened Israel's heart (Isaiah 63:17), and the apostle Paul states that whom God wills He hardens (Romans 9:18).
-from here
The author continues to make some strong points about God's desire here, that is worth discussion. Again, I think the difference for us is going to be what God knows and when He knows it, not so much as to Salvation being efficacious for all who will be saved.
 

shredguitar17

New member
The prayer is specifically about praying for authority (government folks).
We cannot here, tie it into a desire for their salvation. It isn't without those parameters, just not specific to at this point.

I don't disagree with this but thelo is preference, such that we must see this as a qualification upon will. I believe you stress this somewhat as well, but presupposition will drive how this plays out. For the OV, He desires but has no foreknowledge. In the traditional view, He foreknows so that we see this more as preference than a hopeful wish.

A quote from John Gill:





The author continues to make some strong points about God's desire here, that is worth discussion. Again, I think the difference for us is going to be what God knows and when He knows it, not so much as to Salvation being efficacious for all who will be saved.

God's desire? Isn't that like saying the sky wants to be blue? In other words, how can God have a desire? If desire is wanting something, God has everything. What God knows? If he exists, doesn't he know everything? If not why am even alive!!!! :confused: :shocked:
 

Lon

Well-known member
God's desire? Isn't that like saying the sky wants to be blue? In other words, how can God have a desire? If desire is wanting something, God has everything. What God knows? If he exists, doesn't he know everything? If not why am even alive!!!! :confused: :shocked:

My wife had to have her tubes removed. I'd desire to have one more child. Whatever God wills to happens, happens. Within His will however, is His decretive will and His prescriptive will (both what will happen and what is allowed even if it is against His nature). He could have stopped the serpent pronto if He so chose. Hopefully I've hit upon your inquiry here, not sure.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
decretive/prescriptive? Is this Calvinistic speculation? God does not have a secret will that is contrary to His revealed will. The idea that God's will is always done is the flawed assumption. God's will can be rejected and resisted, contrary to Calvinistic omnicausality. However, it sounds like you are a moderate vs hyper-Calvinist.
 

shredguitar17

New member
My wife had to have her tubes removed. I'd desire to have one more child. Whatever God wills to happens, happens. Within His will however, is His decretive will and His prescriptive will (both what will happen and what is allowed even if it is against His nature). He could have stopped the serpent pronto if He so chose. Hopefully I've hit upon your inquiry here, not sure.

Im sorry that happend. My mother had the same thing, I only have one brother. But what I meant, was if there was a God, scripture tells everyone that God is infinite, there by logic he is all knowing, so how can he have desire, as desire is something someone wants. God has everything if he exists right???
 

Lon

Well-known member
Im sorry that happend. My mother had the same thing, I only have one brother. But what I meant, was if there was a God, scripture tells everyone that God is infinite, there by logic he is all knowing, so how can he have desire, as desire is something someone wants. God has everything if he exists right???

I'm not quite following. Perhaps we could use a different word than 'desire' to alleviate what is problematic. I'm not sure how infinite is compared to desire here in your question.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
An expression of desire exists here.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When we are justified and declared righteous in Christ, the Law cannot condemn us. This does not mean that we become subsequently lawless savages like the pagans nor does it mean we become antinomian.

Now you believe Paul's gospel? Nobody MAD has ever said such a thing. Only you says that somebody can lose salvation from their own faith and works.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Now you believe Paul's gospel? Nobody MAD has ever said such a thing. Only you says that somebody can lose salvation from their own faith and works.

Losing salvation relates to denying Christ, not a lack of works. It relates to a reversion to godless unbelief, the antithesis of saving faith. It is about rejecting Christ and His finished work and returning to a godless state or state of unbelief. It is not about not having unwavering faith and has nothing to do with works.

You are like the Calvinists who say that faith is a work if we believe in God vs God regenerating us irresistibly. This is simply false and does not represent the Arminian view properly (you are not representing my view properly, so I would also reject your straw man).
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I don't disagree with this but thelo is preference, such that we must see this as a qualification upon will. I believe you stress this somewhat as well, but presupposition will drive how this plays out. For the OV, He desires but has no foreknowledge. In the traditional view, He foreknows so that we see this more as preference than a hopeful wish.

So, for the deterministic foreknowledge view, God would prefer to have everyone saved, but somehow, in spite of being in control of everything that happens, God doesn't get what He would have preferred to happen?

That's kinda like the story about the Lions and the Bears in 1935. Lions were behind 14-10. There was 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter, when the 3:30 factory whistles went off. Thinking this was the end of the game, the Bears left the field. As time expired, the Lions lost possession of the ball on downs, and lost the game 14-10.

Seriously... God foreknows precisely what is going to happen, and can't bring about what He would prefer to happen? I'm thinking you need to do an omnipotence check.

A quote from John Gill:
The author continues to make some strong points about God's desire here, that is worth discussion. Again, I think the difference for us is going to be what God knows and when He knows it, not so much as to Salvation being efficacious for all who will be saved.

I've heard the argument. There are places where "all" would be interpreted "all kinds", but there isn't sufficient context in 1 John 2 to make this leap.

Muz
 

Lon

Well-known member
So, for the deterministic foreknowledge view, God would prefer to have everyone saved, but somehow, in spite of being in control of everything that happens, God doesn't get what He would have preferred to happen?

That's kinda like the story about the Lions and the Bears in 1935. Lions were behind 14-10. There was 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter, when the 3:30 factory whistles went off. Thinking this was the end of the game, the Bears left the field. As time expired, the Lions lost possession of the ball on downs, and lost the game 14-10.

Seriously... God foreknows precisely what is going to happen, and can't bring about what He would prefer to happen? I'm thinking you need to do an omnipotence check.
Again, there is a difference between his decretive and prescriptive will.


I've heard the argument. There are places where "all" would be interpreted "all kinds", but there isn't sufficient context in 1 John 2 to make this leap.
Muz
At least you understand the premise somewhat. You are stretching the distance however. It is but a simple step, no leap necessary.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Again, there is a difference between his decretive and prescriptive will.

Lon,

The fact that Hilston, a dispensationalist, advocates this invention of "decretive/prescriptive wills of God" is enough reason to reject the teaching.

In fact, the very first time we ever heard this theory of "two wills" taught, was in a sermon preached in an Arminian, hyperdispensational church . . .which husby and I heard prior to our "Reformed" awakenings . . . and which we immediately rejected as untrue . . . even before being exposed to Calvinism, on the Scriptural basis that there is only one Gospel, and one faith.

God is singular in will, purposes, and intents.

It is only those who attempt to compromise or make the sovereign will of God compatible with the (free) actions of men, that speak of a supposed two wills of God.

Such is not to be found in the teachings of the Reformed fathers who adhere to absolute Godly sovereignty.

We would advise you not go there . . .

Nang and Jim
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Don't confuse hyper-sovereignty/omnicausality with biblical, providential sovereignty.

Decretal ideas are philosophical and strained, including Hilston's theories.

God's will can be resisted and rejected. Love, freedom, relationship trump causation, robotics, coercion.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Again, there is a difference between his decretive and prescriptive will.

This is another silly point for a system that claims that God is meticulously sovereign. If everything God wants to happen happens because He is the cause of all things, and everything that happens is His will, how can there be a division in His will?

Think about it. God on one hand says, "murder is wrong" and on other other hand says, "It is my will that Jack the Ripper murder 40 women." It is contradictory. It's insane.

At least you understand the premise somewhat. You are stretching the distance however. It is but a simple step, no leap necessary.

First, there is no indication of who John's audience is. John ministered in Asia among both Jews and Gentiles there. Revelation (at least the beginning) was written to the 7 gentile churches of Asia.

Second, there is nothing in the context to suggest that John is referring to people groups.

Thus, while the audience argument might have had weight, the evidence doesn't support it.

Muz
 
Top