ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Nang]

How can God prohibit murder, but at the same time decree the murder of His own Son? The answer lies in the fact that God wills and wills not after a different manner: one is prescriptive, and one is decretive.

Actually, murder was not decreed. Jesus declared:

"No man taketh it (life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:18

Note: This volitional death on the part of the Son was part of Law and command from the Father. Which equates the decree with the precepts of God. It was God's will that the Son suffer death, voluntarily, to fulfill all righteousness and satisfy the holy Laws of God.

Calvin acknowledges the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive wills:

But Peter teaches us that what befell Jesus was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. From this we learn a general truth about God’s providence, one that appears in the government of the world as a whole, no less than in the death of Jesus: it belongs to God, not only to know the future, but also to ordain by his will whatever he wants to be done. Peter made this second point when he said that Jesus was delivered by the sure and determinate counsel of God. Wherefore, the foreknowledge of God is other than the will of God by which he rules and regulates all things. ~ Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XXIII, p. 183. (emphases added by Hilston)

Notice the last bolded line. The foreknowledge (i.e., decreed will of God) is other than the will of God by which he rule and regulates all things (i.e., the prescriptive will of God). Calvin understands and acknowledges the difference. Will you?

Is it possible you misunderstand Calvin?

God foresaw all humanity as sinful, but created with the intent to show grace and mercy to an elect portion of mankind, via His Son.

God rules according to Law (precepts). God foreknew before He created this world that man would fail to abide by His laws; falling short of His glory.

So, God decrees are redemptive in nature, without doing violence to His holy laws.

How?

God’s decreed will is to overrule the fall of man through the promise of His Son, who would come as a Man, to successfully perform all God’s will, under the Law.

God has ordained redemption and reconciliation with fulfillment of His holy and good Law in mind, despite the fall of man.

What the first Adam failed to do under the Law, the last Adam, Jesus Christ has achieved under the Law. Jesus Christ is the only Man who has succeeded in doing the will of the Father.

God wills His Son inherit a Kingdom, which will be shared with created beings, and the only way created beings can realize glory, is to be found worthy and righteous. God, being aware that flesh and blood, tainted by sin, cannot inherit the Kingdom, provided the Savior, who alone would do the will of God according to the Law; thereby establishing legal grounds to impute His righteousness to a chosen humanity, giving them access to the heavenlies in Him.

By necessity, then, in order to fulfill God’s will both legally and spiritually, Christ had to suffer a substitutional death on behalf of those souls chosen to share in His inheritance of the Kingdom.

So what is revealed throughout the bible is God’s will declared, and God’s workings of His own will, to reconcile humanity with Himself. That reconciliation performed and achieved by God alone.

IOW’s, God’s will is not contingent upon the actions of men at all. God’s will be done, by God:

“For I looked, and there was no man; I looked among them, but there was no counselor, who, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Indeed, they are all worthless; their works are nothing; their molded images are wind and confusion.” Isaiah 41:28-29

“. . Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him.” Isaiah 59:16b

“If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.” II Timothy 2:13




What is it you think God wills, that God fails to get?

We know that the elect are unconditionally saved from their sins, by grace alone, and assured of everlasting life in Christ Jesus.

Did God ever will something different from this? What exactly do you believe the precepts of God (Law) teaches that differs from this successful redemption? Is there a conflict between the law and grace? Does not God’s grace make fulfillment of the Law possible, in Christ? Does not faith establish the law?

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31

Is it not true, that Paul teaches that the precepts of God are the very truths that are the tutor to draw men to Christ?

“The Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law (perceptive will of God) was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified (decretive will of God) by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” Galatians 3:22-25

Where do you see a conflict of divine will or purpose caused by Godly foreknowledge of sin? How does the will of God differ with His determination to work justification for the elect sons of God?

The only reason I have ever discovered for the teaching that God exhibits two wills, is the mistaken notion that God loves all men, which is to deny of the doctrine of individual reprobation, revealed in Romans Chapter 9.

Do you have any another reason to teach there is a duplicity of wills within the Godhead?

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

The only reason I have ever discovered for the teaching that God exhibits two wills, is the mistaken notion that God loves all men, which is to deny of the doctrine of individual reprobation, revealed in Romans Chapter 9.
Nang

Ummm... Rom.9 has NOTHING to do with individuals reprobation. Please read the whole argument...I would really enjoy a full rebuttal.
The view that God arbitrarily chooses whom He will have mercy on and whom He will harden and that this divine activity decides people's eternal destiny contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that God's impartial

(Acts 10:34 Deut 10:17-19 2 Chon 19:7 Job 34 Is 55:4-5 Ezek 18:25 Mk 12: 14 Jn 3:16 Rom 2:10-11 Eph 6:9 1 Peter 1:17) and that God desires everyone to be saved (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11 Jn 3:16 1 Tim 2:4; 4:10 2 Peter 3:9 1 Jn 2:2)


It also underminds the central motif of Scripture that free agents are morally responsible for their free actions and are thus culpable when they go against God's will. In addition, it arguably contradicts the scriptural depiction of God as one who is altogether holy, just and merciful. He "does not willing afflict or grieve anyone"( Lam 3:33).

For all of us who hold that Scripture is inspired by God and thus is consistent in what it teaches, this inconsistency should cause us to suspect that something is amiss in the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9.

It is worth noting that this passage was not interpreted in a deterministic fashion prior to Augustine in the fourth century(with the exception of certain Gnostics and the Manicheans).

Whenever interpreting difficult texts it is important to pay close attention to the author's OWN summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. If our conclusions about the author's argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.


Fortunately, Paul provides us with such a summary in Rom 9. Paul begins his summary by asking, 'What then are we to say?"(Rom 9:30) If the deterministic inter. of Romans 9 were correct, we would expect Paul to summarize his argument by saying something like, "The sovereign God determines who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question Him". But this is not at all what Pauls says. He rather brings the strands of his argument in this chap. together by concluding:


Rom.9:30 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:

31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works."


Paul explains everything he has been talking about in this Ch. by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles. The Jews did not strive by faith, though they should have. As Paul reiterates in the succeeding two chaps., the Jews as a nation did not submit to the righteousness of God that comes by faith(Rom.10:3.


Here comes the big one!!!!! They were broken off BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF"(Rom. 11:20) THIS is why they as a nation now in part been hardened, while the Gentiles who seek God by faith have been grafted in.

 

[Nang]

Ummm... Rom.9 has NOTHING to do with individuals reprobation. Please read the whole argument...I would really enjoy a full rebuttal.
The view that God arbitrarily chooses whom He will have mercy on and whom He will harden and that this divine activity decides people's eternal destiny contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that God's impartial

(Acts 10:34 Deut 10:17-19 2 Chon 19:7 Job 34 Is 55:4-5 Ezek 18:25 Mk 12: 14 Jn 3:16 Rom 2:10-11 Eph 6:9 1 Peter 1:17) and that God desires everyone to be saved (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11 Jn 3:16 1 Tim 2:4; 4:10 2 Peter 3:9 1 Jn 2:2)


It also underminds the central motif of Scripture that free agents are morally responsible for their free actions and are thus culpable when they go against God's will. In addition, it arguably contradicts the scriptural depiction of God as one who is altogether holy, just and merciful. He "does not willing afflict or grieve anyone"( Lam 3:33).

For all of us who hold that Scripture is inspired by God and thus is consistent in what it teaches, this inconsistency should cause us to suspect that something is amiss in the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9.

It is worth noting that this passage was not interpreted in a deterministic fashion prior to Augustine in the fourth century(with the exception of certain Gnostics and the Manicheans).

Whenever interpreting difficult texts it is important to pay close attention to the author's OWN summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. If our conclusions about the author's argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.


Fortunately, Paul provides us with such a summary in Rom 9. Paul begins his summary by asking, 'What then are we to say?"(Rom 9:30) If the deterministic inter. of Romans 9 were correct, we would expect Paul to summarize his argument by saying something like, "The sovereign God determines who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question Him". But this is not at all what Pauls says. He rather brings the strands of his argument in this chap. together by concluding:


Rom.9:30 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:

31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works."


Paul explains everything he has been talking about in this Ch. by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles. The Jews did not strive by faith, though they should have. As Paul reiterates in the succeeding two chaps., the Jews as a nation did not submit to the righteousness of God that comes by faith(Rom.10:3.


Here comes the big one!!!!! They were broken off BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF"(Rom. 11:20) THIS is why they as a nation now in part been hardened, while the Gentiles who seek God by faith have been grafted in.

How can you talk about corporate faith in one breath, and "hardening in part," in the next? If you are going to interpret Romans Chapter 9, corporately, you must impose that method to the matter of election and reprobation.

To follow your premise to its logical conclusion, since it is God's will to deal with Israel corporately (supposedly represented by Jacob), He by necessity would either be obligated to save every Israelite that ever lived, or He would be obligated to cut off the nation in its entirety; saving none.

Such contradicts the basis of election as pertaining "not of works, but of Him who calls." Romans 9:11; 15-16 (cp John 6:44-45)

Do you not realize this view completely denies God possessing any purposes of His own, and depicts Him as a passive servant of His creatures; obligating Him to love them or hate them according to their choices; not His?

Or do you just think God loves them all, and wills to save them all, but He cannot, because they won't cooperate? Do you realize this view renders God powerless? Which contradicts Romans 9:17



So to sum up your argument, corporate election is granted according to the willful choices of individual men, and election has nothing to do with the sovereign will of God?

What exactly do you think is the sovereign will of God? If you concede He indeed has a sovereign will, that is . . .

(And, if you are ~borrowing~ data from a commentary, you really should document an attribution.)

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

How can you talk about corporate faith in one breath, and "hardening in part," in the next? If you are going to interpret Romans Chapter 9, corporately, you must impose that method to the matter of election and reprobation.

To follow your premise to its logical conclusion, since it is God's will to deal with Israel corporately (supposedly represented by Jacob), He by necessity would either be obligated to save every Israelite that ever lived, or He would be obligated to cut off the nation in its entirety; saving none.

Such contradicts the basis of election as pertaining "not of works, but of Him who calls." Romans 9:11; 15-16 (cp John 6:44-45)

Do you not realize this view completely denies God possessing any purposes of His own, and depicts Him as a passive servant of His creatures; obligating Him to love them or hate them according to their choices; not His?

Or do you just think God loves them all, and wills to save them all, but He cannot, because they won't cooperate? Do you realize this view renders God powerless? Which contradicts Romans 9:17



So to sum up your argument, corporate election is granted according to the willful choices of individual men, and election has nothing to do with the sovereign will of God?

What exactly do you think is the sovereign will of God? If you concede He indeed has a sovereign will, that is . . .

(And, if you are ~borrowing~ data from a commentary, you really should document an attribution.)

Nang

You obviously did not read and seriously think about my ENTIRE post. You did not address any of the meat of my argument!

 

[Hilston]

Nang, there appears to be some basic misunderstandings in terminology going on here. I need to ask you some questions. I've done my best to answer all your questions. So, for the sake of our mutual understanding, please don't skip any of mine.

Actually, murder was not decreed. Jesus declared:

"No man taketh it (life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:18

Question 1: I would like to find out what you understand as the meaning of "decree." Do you not believe that everything that happens has been decreed by God?

Note: This volitional death on the part of the Son was part of Law and command from the Father. Which equates the decree with the precepts of God. It was God's will that the Son suffer death, voluntarily, to fulfill all righteousness and satisfy the holy Laws of God.

Question 2: Do you believe it was God's will that Jesus would be "delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God … taken by lawless hands … executed, and put to death?" (Ac 2:23). Do you not believe that the murder of Jesus is exactly what God's "hand and ... purpose determined before to be done?" (Ac 4:28)

Hilston previously wrote:

Calvin acknowledges the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive wills:

But Peter teaches us that what befell Jesus was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. From this we learn a general truth about God’s providence, one that appears in the government of the world as a whole, no less than in the death of Jesus: it belongs to God, not only to know the future, but also to ordain by his will whatever he wants to be done. Peter made this second point when he said that Jesus was delivered by the sure and determinate counsel of God. Wherefore, the foreknowledge of God is other than the will of God by which he rules and regulates all things. ~ Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XXIII, p. 183. (emphases added by Hilston)

Notice the last bolded line. The foreknowledge (i.e., decreed will of God) is other than the will of God by which he rule and regulates all things (i.e., the prescriptive will of God). Calvin understands and acknowledges the difference. Will you?

Is it possible you misunderstand Calvin?

Sure, it's possible. But the words seem plain to me. Would you please point out my misunderstanding?

God foresaw all humanity as sinful, but created with the intent to show grace and mercy to an elect portion of mankind, via His Son.

Question 3: Do you equate what God foresees with He decrees, as Calvin does? If not, what is the distinction you would make between them?

God rules according to Law (precepts). God foreknew before He created this world that man would fail to abide by His laws; falling short of His glory.

Question 4: Do you equate God's foreknowledge with His decrees, as Calvin does? If not, how are they different?

So, God decrees are redemptive in nature, without doing violence to His holy laws.

Question 5: Then do I understand that you believe, contrary to Calvin, that God has NOT decreed all things that come to pass?

IOW’s, God’s will is not contingent upon the actions of men at all. God’s will be done, by God:

I agree. Have you been under the impression that I believe otherwise?

What is it you think God wills, that God fails to get?

Not a single thing. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, are all precisely according to God's decrees. Not a hair of your head, not a fly that falls dead, exists or moves apart from God having decreed, in every detail, that precise existence and movement.

We know that the elect are unconditionally saved from their sins, by grace alone, and assured of everlasting life in Christ Jesus.

Did God ever will something different from this?

No.

What exactly do you believe the precepts of God (Law) teaches that differs from this successful redemption?

The precepts of God teach us about His nature and character and how our lives ought to be lived. They do not teach about redemption, because redemption is based on God's decrees concerning the elect.

Where do you see a conflict of divine will or purpose caused by Godly foreknowledge of sin?

I don't. God's purpose is fulfilled by way of the sin He decreed.

How does the will of God differ with His determination to work justification for the elect sons of God?

God's prescribed will is that all men seek Him. God's decreed will is that only the elect will seek Him. These are different wills. The former is prescribed, the latter is decreed.

The only reason I have ever discovered for the teaching that God exhibits two wills, is the mistaken notion that God loves all men, which is to deny of the doctrine of individual reprobation, revealed in Romans Chapter 9.

I do not deny the doctrine of reprobation. Jesus died only for the elect, and not for a single person who ends up in hell. He predestined the individual members of the Body of Christ for salvation (vessels of honor), and He ordained the individual rebels for hell (vessels of dishonor).

Do you have any another reason to teach there is a duplicity of wills within the Godhead?

Yes, as I've explained. God's laws express what men ought to do, not what they will do. That which men ought to do comprises God's prescribed will. That which men actually do comprises God's decreed will. Everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen (according to His decrees), even when it is contrary to what God commands to be done (according to His prescriptions).

I look forward to your responses to my questions.

Drink by date on the bottle,
Hilston

 

[Nang]

Nang, there appears to be some basic misunderstandings in terminology going on here. I need to ask you some questions. I've done my best to answer all your questions. So, for the sake of our mutual understanding, please don't skip any of mine.

Since you have asked nicely, and ceased your recent bullying tactics, I will try to give you answers.

Question 1: I would like to find out what you understand as the meaning of "decree." Do you not believe that everything that happens has been decreed by God?

A decree is an ordered cause produced for specific effect. A sovereign decree is unchangeable and therefore settled, assuring the desired effect.

Question 2: Do you believe it was God's will that Jesus would be "delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God

Yes. This event was decreed (caused) by God, according to His will, under the demands of the Law in order to fulfill justice and work redemption

… taken by lawless hands … executed, and put to death?" (Ac 2:23).

This was a portion of the effect; however, the crucifixion would not have occurred if Christ had not willed to be delivered by lawless hands unto death. (John 10:18) For the full effect of this decree was propitiation for sins and the redemption of those the Father gave Him to save.

Do you not believe that the murder of Jesus is exactly what God's "hand and ... purpose determined before to be done?" (Ac 4:28)

I believe the “lawless hands” were the means to achieve both the Father’s and the Son’s will to justify the sins of the elect souls Christ represented in His flesh.

But the words (Calvin's) seem plain to me. Would you please point out my misunderstanding?

Calvin simply made distinction between two theological terms: “foreknowledge” and “the will of God by which he rules and regulates all things.” Foreknowledge is a divine attribute; not causal. God’s willful decrees are determinate.

Question 3: Do you equate what God foresees with He decrees, as Calvin does? If not, what is the distinction you would make between them?

I do not think Calvin equates the two. Calvin wrote:
“. . .what befell Jesus was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him.”.

Question 4: Do you equate God's foreknowledge with His decrees, as Calvin does? If not, how are they different?

Asked and answered.

Question 5: Then do I understand that you believe, contrary to Calvin, that God has NOT decreed all things that come to pass?

God has decreed all things that have occurred in His creation, including making man in His image and giving man moral agency by which man produces secondary cause and effect.

The precepts of God teach us about His nature and character and how our lives ought to be lived. They do not teach about redemption, because redemption is based on God's decrees concerning the elect.

God created man under the Law; knowing that man would fail to keep the Law. The Law reveals the perfection of humanity required to fellowship with God; and the chosen elect are not only created from Adam, but are also “created in Christ,” in order that they might be declared worthy under the Law to share inheritance of the Kingdom promised to the Son. Jesus Christ kept the Law (the Covenant of Works), on behalf of His people, so that there would be forensic grounds to impute His righteousness to their account, declaring them worthy to fellowship with Him in glory, forever and ever.

IOW’s God’s will, decrees, and precepts revealed to men, all work to draw men to their need and enjoyment of their Redeemer. God’s plans and determinations are far-reaching; revealing His purposes settled for the long-term; even before the foundation of the world.

God's prescribed will is that all men seek Him.

Do you have Scripture that says exactly that?

I read the command as saying:
“You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:3

It is the nature and will of fallen man to follow after idols. None seek God, not one. This sinful willfulness produces secondary cause and effect; but God has decreed man possess this agency and ability, despite his moral abuses.

Why would God command men to do what He has decreed they would fail to do? . . .is this a difference in the will of God? . . .Or has God decreed that He would fulfill His own will and Law on behalf of unwilling, fallen men, to display His grace?

“Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 4:20-21

I believe God’s precepts match His decree . . . which was to create spiritual offspring in Christ (Eph. 2:10), who are made righteous and worthy of heavenly glory according to those Godly precepts, that have been honored and satisified by Himself:

“He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him.” Isaiah 59:16

God's decreed will is that only the elect will seek Him. These are different wills.

Even the elect do not seek God according to their fallen natures; but God has decreed they be “dragged” to Christ to find their redemption. John 6:44

And I am not sure you are correct in your assessment of God's precepts. I do not read in Scripture that God wills all men "seek Him."

The former is prescribed, the latter is decreed.

No, they are not different, because even God’s precepts were decreed (The Word was ordained to become flesh, after all!) and all work together to fulfill God’s purposes of redemption. Galatians 4:22-24

God's laws express what men ought to do, not what they will do.
That which men ought to do comprises God's prescribed will.

Earlier you said, “God's prescribed will is that all men seek Him.” And you also say, “He ordained the individual rebels for hell (vessels of dishonor).” Is this the difference you think you see in the wills of God?

I would question your take on exactly what God commanded men ought to do. If God so willed that all men seek Him, why has God not provided the good news to all men? And why has God ordained the destruction of wicked men?

That which men actually do comprises God's decreed will.

And God decreed to give man moral agency to work secondary cause and effect. Man caused his own fall, but the fall was ordained by God, for His own purposes.

Everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen (according to His decrees), even when it is contrary to what God commands to be done (according to His prescriptions).

Hooray! We agree.

Even broken commands brought forth by secondary causes, can not affect or change the will of God.

God has a singular will, purpose, and plan. All things work out according to His will, purposes, and plan. Everything is settled and assured, in and through, and to the glory of Christ Jesus.

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Romans 8:28

”In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth . . in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” Ephesians 2:7-12

Nang

 

[Hilston]

Response to penofareadywriter's recent post:

Ummm... Rom.9 has NOTHING to do with individuals reprobation. Please read the whole argument...I would really enjoy a full rebuttal.

The standard argument from the Open Theists is that Romans 9 is about corporate and not individual election (i.e., about a nation and not individual people). For that to be true, one must show a singular noun or pronoun in reference to a collective. For example, the word "team" is a corporate word. That's a singular noun that refers to a collective, or corporate entity. Consider the following terms and pronouns in Romans 9, noting the references to lots of individuals:

• "brethren" = reference to more than one individual brother [not a corporate entity, but a plurality of individuals].
• "kinsmen" = reference to more than one individual kinsman.
• "Israelites" = reference to more than one individual Israelite.
• "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" = "they" is a plural pronoun, referring to more than one individual comprising Israel.
• "they are the seed of Abraham ... they all children" = Plural pronoun again, and "children" referring to more than one individual child.
• "they which are the children of the flesh" = Plural pronoun, refers to more than one individual.
• "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" ="whom" is a singular pronoun.
• "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" = "him" is a singular pronoun.
• "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." = "whom" is a singular pronoun.
• "Thou wilt say then unto me," = "thou" is a singular pronoun referring to an individual
• "Nay but, O man, "= "man" is a singular individual.

Each of the examples listed refers to an individual (singular) or individuals (plural). Lots of individuals. No collective. No corporate entity. Check the list for a singular reference to a corporate entity. It's not there, no matter how much the Open Theist wishes it were so. If it had said, "It is not all Israel which is of Israel," one would have a case. But alas, it doesn't say that.

The view that God arbitrarily chooses whom He will have mercy on and whom He will harden and that this divine activity decides people's eternal destiny contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that God's impartial.

You need to look up the word "arbitrary." It's not a bad word except when applied to humans. God can be completely arbitrary and righteous. It's His prerogative. Of course, the Open Theists cannot abide such a concept, so they end up irrationally trusting in their own caricature of God. Here's the definition of arbitrary as it is used in theological parlance:

"arbitrary adj. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system : • (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority."

God's arbitrary decisions reflect His essential character, and therefore we can trust that God only decreed that which works toward the ultimate good of those He loves.

The complaint of "arbitrariness," as if it's an inherently bad word, betrays the existentialism that pervades humanistic theologies such as the Open View. Open View proponents resist the concept of God's essence, and focus only on God's existential actions and behavior, which they judge according to their own humanistic "Man-Is-The-Measure-Of-All-Things" standards. Why else do Open Theists call God's meticulous control of the universe being a "control freak." They take the hangups and perversions of man and apply them to God. It's the same with arbitrariness. Open Theists will not allow God to be arbitrary and to have unrestrained prerogative because humans cannot be arbitrary without abusing or perverting that presumed prerogative. The bottom line is that the proponents of humanistic doctrines like Universal Redemption want to control God, to bring Him down and to raise man up. They want there to be as little difference between man and God as possible, unwittingly exposing their underlying assumption that God and man are not all that different. Since man is wont to abuse authority and cannot be trusted to be arbitrary, neither can God. If Open Theists understood God's essential nature and character as revealed in Scripture, they could take comfort in God's arbitrary decrees, and realize that it's not only okay for God to be arbitrary, it is necessary.

God's arbitrary choice is precisely the point of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." God is describing His prerogative to be arbitrary. That is why Paul mocks the complaint. The complainers (like Open Theists) say, "If God has mercy on whomever He wills, then He is being arbitrary!" Exactly! That's the point. God is the potter. The potter does whatever he wants with the clay. That is the extent of the metaphor. We are to understand God's actions in terms of what a potter does. Never the reverse. We understand people in terms of what the pots are like, never the reverse.

God's love is arbitrary, in the true sense of the word. It is impartial and completely arbitrary. Particular redemption makes God's love and sacrifice truly meaningful, effectual and sufficient. Whereas the various co-Savior doctrines, such as Open Theism, make Jesus a Salvation Assistant. God's impartial and arbitrary love accomplishes exactly that for which He intends it: the infallible salvation of those for whom He died.

It also underminds [sic] the central motif of Scripture that free agents are morally responsible for their free actions and are thus culpable when they go against God's will.

On the contrary, ONLY the Determinist view rightly affirms the moral responsibility of free agents and their rightful place in the created order (i.e., they are fallible and finite men). Anti-determinists, not unlike Lucifer in the Garden of Eden, distort the concept of free agency by unduly granting more power and influence to men than God ever intended for them ("ye shall be as gods"), thereby undermining the immutable attributes of God as He is revealed in Scripture. The Open View's tacit aim is to make man more than man, and to make God less than God.

In addition, it arguably contradicts the scriptural depiction of God as one who is altogether holy, just and merciful. He "does not willing afflict or grieve anyone"( Lam 3:33).

Notice how, in typical Open View fashion, the Open Theist seizes upon verses that, through the distorting lens of Open Theism, make God out to be less than God. Open Theists love verses that make God appear to be forgetful, surprised, ignorant and a bad predictor of future events.

It is worth noting that this passage was not interpreted in a deterministic fashion prior to Augustine in the fourth century(with the exception of certain Gnostics and the Manicheans).

Arguments from silence are not very persuasive. One could just as easily, and no less persuasively, argue that the writings of Determinist preceding Augustine were burned by third-century Open Theists.

Whenever interpreting difficult texts it is important to pay close attention to the author's OWN summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. If our conclusions about the author's argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.

Who says it's a difficult text? It is easily translated straight from the Greek, and the Determinist conclusion aligns perfectly with Paul's.

Fortunately, Paul provides us with such a summary in Rom 9. Paul begins his summary by asking, 'What then are we to say?"(Rom 9:30) If the deterministic inter. of Romans 9 were correct, we would expect Paul to summarize his argument by saying something like, "The sovereign God determines who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question Him". But this is not at all what Pauls says.

That's because he already said it, in no uncertain terms. Here's what he said: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (that is, "The sovereign God determines who will be elect and who will not …"). Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (that is, "… and no one has the right to question Him").

He rather brings the strands of his argument in this chap. together by concluding:

Rom.9:30 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: 31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works."

Paul explains to his reader that salvation is not the result making morally responsible choices, but rather out of the faith God decreed for His elect. Open Theists will attempt to turn this point away from Paul's actual salvation-by-faith message and turn it into a salvation by works.

Paul explains everything he has been talking about in this Ch. by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles.

See what I mean? It isn't the blood of Christ that saves you, according to Open Theists, but rather your "morally responsible choices." They will then attempt to even turn the concept of faith into something that is acquired by works, i.e. "striving" and "submitting."

The Jews did not strive by faith, though they should have. As Paul reiterates in the succeeding two chaps., the Jews as a nation did not submit to the righteousness of God that comes by faith(Rom.10:3.

Q.E.D.

Shake well,
Hilston

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Please show me where I said 'now YOU know.'
As I reread the entire thread, nobody said that. Why in the world would you bring up such a thing unless you are trying purposefully to discredit with slander? I'd like to concede it is just faulty presupposition or perhaps some other obscure disagreement you've had in the past instead but only you'd be able to clear this up. It has a slanderous and obfuscating tenor I'd like to see cleared up. We can go back to Muz' Ockham Razor and trim what is unnecessary.

Hi all,

I just noticed that I'm like 155 pages behind... LOL I don't mean to intrude, but I wanted to offer a few observations... I think it might be important to look at the mindset of Abraham and the mindset of God through this event... I think it's important to consider "why" God might test Abraham.

God called Abram out of his country, the Ur of the Chaldeans (Genesis 12). Abram and God develop a relationship, and Abram questions God's "reward" that is promised in Genesis 15.

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." 2 But Abram said, "Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!"

God promises that He will give Abram an heir, even though his wife Sarai has not yet been able to conceive a child.

Genesis 15:4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir." 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Notice, Abram's belief that his seed would be like the stars of the sky are credited to his account as righteousness. This will be important later... How long does Abram remain faithful and believe that God will give him an heir? Not long...

Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, "See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her." And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. 3 Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. 4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes.

Abram did what his wife asked him to do. He had intercourse with her servant Hagar. When Hagar conceived, she despised Sarai. Sarai "dealt harshly with" Hagar, and Hagar fled from Sarai. God confronts Hagar and tells her about her son, Ishmael, and tells her to return to Sarai (Genesis 16:6-16). What's relevant to our discussion? Let's see how God deals with Abram for submitting to his flesh and attempting to fulfill God's promise on his own when he was 86-years-old.

Abram is now 99-years-old, and is confronted by God. God changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah. God adds the covenant of circumcision. Why would God ask a 99-year-old man to show faith by cutting off the flesh of his foreskin? To show that Abraham would not have confidence in his own flesh and concieve a son apart from God. Paul addresses this idea in Philippians...

Philippians 3: For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;

In Genesis 17, God commanded Abraham, Ishmael and all males who remained with Isreal to submit to God's everlasting covenant of circumcision. A couple of unrelated questions here, then I'll get back on topic...

1. If Abram was "accounted righteous" by believing in Genesis 15:6, what would have happened to Abram if he would have refused to become circumcised? Why was Abraham justified in Genesis 22 for offerng up Isaac as a sacrifice? (James 2:21)

2. If the covenant of circumcision is an "everlasting covenant" according to God, what does that mean? Is it still required today?

Now, on with our story... Abraham was 99-years-old when he was circumcised and Ishmael was 13-years-old when he was circumcised. Abraham and Sarah are both sexually dead and are not physically able to conceive. God appears in the image to them in Genesis 18 and promises that they will conceive a son. The promised son of the promised seed, Issac, is born in Genesis 21 when Abraham is 100-years-old. Abraham circumcises Isaac on the 8th day as he was commanded.

Now, why is this all important? My original question was, "Why" did God test Abraham in Genesis 22? Isn't it obvious?

God promised that Abram's seed would be like the stars of the sky. Abram did not remain faithful to God and attempted to fulfill the promise on his own. God commands Abraham to show his faith in an extremely painful and physical way when he is 99-years-old. Now, the promised son is born to him, and God again tests Abraham's faithfulness. God has chosen Abraham to be the father of the nations, and tests Abraham to make sure Abraham is faithful and is ready to receive God's blessing. This time, God does not ask Abraham to cut off his own flesh, but asks him to kill his son that came from his flesh, the miracle baby, the promised seed.

Now, what was Abraham's mindset during this event? Why was he so willing to offer his own son as a sacrifice? Abraham never believed for an instant that he would walk back down that mountain without his son Isaac.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

God tested Abraham because Abram waivered in the past, and God taught him a painful lesson. Abraham believed that God would raise his promised son from the dead all along. James 2:21 tells us that Abraham was justified for offering up Isaac as a sacrifice...

Now, the SV'ers here are forced to argue that God "predestined" Abram to believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky.

They are forced to argue that God "predestined" Abram to attempt to fulfill God's promise on his own and have intercourse with his wife's servant.

They are forced to argue that God "predestined" Abram to undermine God's own promise to Abram...

I know, it doesn't make sense to me either.

They are forced to argue that God "predestined" all these events so that He could impose a physically brutal and painful procedure on a 99-year-old man "for His own pleasure..."

The reality of Scripture shows that God chose Abram for a service. God called Abram out of his own land and promised land and lineage to him. Abram exercised his free will and attempted to fulfill God's promise on his own and serve the desires of his flesh. God commanded that he "cut of his flesh" to show absolute faith in God. If Abram would have refused, he would have been "cut off" and died in his sins. After circumcision, Abraham remains faithful, even when his wife is not. When his promised son is born, he trusts God completely. He trusts God so much, that when God tests his level of faith, he is willing to kill his own promised miracle son. Of course, he believed all along that if he was faithful and slayed his son, that God would raise Isaac fromthe dead. Abraham passed that test, and "then God knew" (now I know...) that Abraham was indeed still faithful.

God bless,

Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Lighthouse]

Jeremy Finkenbinder

Where have you been?!

 

[Hilston]

Hi Nang,

I have some follow-up questions and clarifications; I hope you will indulge me.

Since you have asked nicely, and ceased your recent bullying tactics, I will try to give you answers.

Do you remember the initial post that I responded to? Your words comprised nothing less than an attempt to bully Lon into dismissing everything I write solely on the basis of my dispensational views. Shouldn't someone who engages in bully tactics themselves be careful about assigning such appellatives to others?

Question 1: I would like to find out what you understand as the meaning of "decree." Do you not believe that everything that happens has been decreed by God?

A decree is an ordered cause produced for specific effect. A sovereign decree is unchangeable and therefore settled, assuring the desired effect.

Are you making a distinction between a "decree" and a "sovereign decree"? In your opinion, has God decreed everything that happened in your life today?

Question 2: Do you believe it was God's will that Jesus would be "delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God?

Yes. This event was decreed (caused) by God, according to His will, under the demands of the Law in order to fulfill justice and work redemption

Ok, then would you agree with the statement that God decreed an act of murder, which does not match God's precept ("Thou shalt not murder")?

Do you not believe that the murder of Jesus is exactly what God's "hand and ... purpose determined before to be done?" (Ac 4:28).

I believe the “lawless hands” were the means to achieve both the Father’s and the Son’s will to justify the sins of the elect souls Christ represented in His flesh.

Yes, the "lawless hands" were the means. But do you believe that God decreed the means as well as the murder of Jesus, which does not match His precept ("Thou shalt not murder")?

Question 3: Do you equate what God foresees with He decrees, as Calvin does? If not, what is the distinction you would make between them?

I do not think Calvin equates the two. Calvin wrote:
“. . .what befell Jesus was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him.”.

Please forgive me. I try very hard to be clear when I write, but sometimes my brain moves faster than my fingers. What I should have written was: "Do you equate that which God foresees with that which He decrees, as Calvin does? For example, Calvin states that God not only foresaw the murder of Christ, but also decreed it (a decree of God which does not match His precept, "Thou shalt not murder").

Question 5: Then do I understand that you believe, contrary to Calvin, that God has NOT decreed all things that come to pass?

God has decreed all things that have occurred in His creation, including making man in His image and giving man moral agency by which man produces secondary cause and effect.

I agree. But do you also believe that God decreed what men do with their moral agency, e.g., what you ate for breakfast?

God's prescribed will is that all men seek Him.

Do you have Scripture that says exactly that?

Not exactly, but the gist of it is in Acts 17:30, which presents a precept of God, "that God commands all men everywhere to repent." But we know that God has decreed that some men NOT repent. That is one of many examples in which God's precept (command) does not match His decree.

I believe God’s precepts match His decree . . .

What about the precept, "Thou shalt not murder," and God's decree that His Son would be murdered? This is a case in which the precept does not match the decree. Won't you agree?

Earlier you said, “God's prescribed will is that all men seek Him.” And you also say, “He ordained the individual rebels for hell (vessels of dishonor).” Is this the difference you think you see in the wills of God?

One of many. Here are others:

• God's precept is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), but God's decree was to raise up adversity against David from his own house, to take David's wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor, who would lie with David's wives in the sight of the sun.
• God's precept is the blessing of his people by other nations (Genesis 12:3), but God's decree was "[turn] their heart to hate his people" (Psalm 105:25).
• God's precept to Pharaoh was to let His people go (Exodus 5:1, 8:1), but God's decree was to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21).
• God's precept was for David not to take a military census of the people (2 Samuel 24:10), but God decreed that He would be angry with David and to move him to do just that (2 Samuel 24:1).
• God's precept is "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13), but God decreed that His only Son would be murdered, "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Ac 2:23), "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28).

In each of these examples, the precept does NOT match the decree.

Everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen (according to His decrees), even when it is contrary to what God commands to be done (according to His prescriptions).

Hooray! We agree.

I'm seriously puzzled now. What you now seem to agree with is not one whit different from what I've been saying all along.

Even broken commands brought forth by secondary causes, can not affect or change the will of God.

I agree, where God's commands (broken or not) comprise God's prescriptive will, and the will of God that cannot be affected or changed is His decretive will.

God has a singular will, purpose, and plan. All things work out according to His will, purposes, and plan. Everything is settled and assured, in and through, and to the glory of Christ Jesus.

I agree, as it describes God's decretive will, not His prescriptive will.

Look forward to your response.

Shovel-ready,
Hilston

 

[godrulz]

Where have you been?!

Why not just ask him by name where he has been instead of us having to scroll down his long post to read your unrelated comment?

(I know I am not a mod, just housekeeping to make the site more user friendly).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why not just ask him by name where he has been instead of us having to scroll down his long post to read your unrelated comment?

(I know I am not a mod, just housekeeping to make the site more user friendly).

You do know that depending on the number of posts a person has set to view per page it often makes sense to quote someone in entirety so that the reader does not have to go hunting for the original post? It is a matter of convenience. About the only time it would be odd is to quote a long post when your post is the very next post to the one so quoted.

AMR

 

[penofareadywriter]

Hi Nang,

I have some follow-up questions and clarifications; I hope you will indulge me.

Do you remember the initial post that I responded to? Your words comprised nothing less than an attempt to bully Lon into dismissing everything I write solely on the basis of my dispensational views. Shouldn't someone who engages in bully tactics themselves be careful about assigning such appellatives to others?



Are you making a distinction between a "decree" and a "sovereign decree"? In your opinion, has God decreed everything that happened in your life today?



Ok, then would you agree with the statement that God decreed an act of murder, which does not match God's precept ("Thou shalt not murder")?



Yes, the "lawless hands" were the means. But do you believe that God decreed the means as well as the murder of Jesus, which does not match His precept ("Thou shalt not murder")?



Please forgive me. I try very hard to be clear when I write, but sometimes my brain moves faster than my fingers. What I should have written was: "Do you equate that which God foresees with that which He decrees, as Calvin does? For example, Calvin states that God not only foresaw the murder of Christ, but also decreed it (a decree of God which does not match His precept, "Thou shalt not murder").



I agree. But do you also believe that God decreed what men do with their moral agency, e.g., what you ate for breakfast?



Not exactly, but the gist of it is in Acts 17:30, which presents a precept of God, "that God commands all men everywhere to repent." But we know that God has decreed that some men NOT repent. That is one of many examples in which God's precept (command) does not match His decree.

What about the precept, "Thou shalt not murder," and God's decree that His Son would be murdered? This is a case in which the precept does not match the decree. Won't you agree?

One of many. Here are others:

• God's precept is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), but God's decree was to raise up adversity against David from his own house, to take David's wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor, who would lie with David's wives in the sight of the sun.
• God's precept is the blessing of his people by other nations (Genesis 12:3), but God's decree was "[turn] their heart to hate his people" (Psalm 105:25).
• God's precept to Pharaoh was to let His people go (Exodus 5:1, 8:1), but God's decree was to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21).
• God's precept was for David not to take a military census of the people (2 Samuel 24:10), but God decreed that He would be angry with David and to move him to do just that (2 Samuel 24:1).
• God's precept is "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13), but God decreed that His only Son would be murdered, "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Ac 2:23), "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28).

In each of these examples, the precept does NOT match the decree.



I'm seriously puzzled now. What you now seem to agree with is not one whit different from what I've been saying all along.

I agree, where God's commands (broken or not) comprise God's prescriptive will, and the will of God that cannot be affected or changed is His decretive will.

I agree, as it describes God's decretive will, not His prescriptive will.

Look forward to your response.

Shovel-ready,
Hilston

Did you delete your response to me. I know i saw it somewhere and I can't find it anywhere!

 

[Hilston]

Did you delete your response to me. I know i saw it somewhere and I can't find it anywhere!

No, it's still there.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2037163&postcount=2387

 

[themuzicman]

Ah, yes... the same Hilston that looks for creative ways to twist what everyone else says. He's better left on ignore, readywriter.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Greetings Mr. Hilston,

I have focused my reply, to this explanation from you, because I believe it to be the most pertinent at the moment. (You and I can discuss daily determinations and decrees in the Christian life at some other time, after we clarify our differences on this important subject.)

. . . the gist of it is in Acts 17:30, which presents a precept of God, "that God commands all men everywhere to repent." But we know that God has decreed that some men NOT repent. That is one of many examples in which God's precept (command) does not match His decree.

You have given answer to this, and I quote your words:

"There's nothing inconsistent or contradictory about God prohibiting something and decreeing that it happen. Throughout scripture we are shown examples in which God has decreed that which is contrary to His prescriptions for His own good reasons and purposes."

The first sentence is our area of agreement. There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about God’s precepts and decrees. The one will of God, revealed in His word and Law, is fulfilled through sovereign decree. Since this statement is inconsistent on your part, I do not agree with the last sentence, which we now discuss.

“. . For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying ‘My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure.” Isaiah 46:10

Breaking this down, it is revealed:

God is Sovereign = “I am God, and there is no other”

God declares (prescribes and proscribes) = “the end from the beginning”

God decrees = “things that are not yet done”

God purposes = “My counsel (precepts) shall stand and I will do (decreed) all My pleasure.

So I question why you find it necessary to insist upon making distinctions? Why say God has “two wills” when it is clear that all God has commanded, God will do, and His will be done?

It has been my observation, that this unnecessary argument is made only when one attempts to formulate a doctrine that does not easily accord with the Word of God. For example: the most common reason to teach that God has two wills, is to uphold the notion that God loves all men and desires that no man perish in their sins. Supposedly God brings the gospel to all men, in a well-meant offer of salvation, made possible through the universal atoning work of His Son on the cross. The fact that not all men are saved, and not all men even hear this gospel, presents a difficulty to this teaching . . . so it is explained away by teaching that God “desires” all men be saved, but God has “decreed” that only an elect be saved. It is thought this answers the contradiction in their teaching, but all that is achieved is that God’s just reasons to repropate many creatures and bring many men to justice through judgment is neglected if not outright denied. Plus, it depicts a God that desires but does not get, which does not accord with the revealed precepts of God, at all; exampled in the above verse.

Often, this passage is used to verify this notion that God can desire something, but men can thwart His will:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” Matthew 23:37

Those who would teach that God “wants” but sinners prevent God’s will be accomplished, must also provide answer to this question:

Are there any elect, decreed before the foundation of the world to receive redemption in and through Jesus Christ, who have not been saved because of the Jews killing the prophets of God? Any at all?

If the answer is, yes, the rulers of Jerusalem kept many of God’s children from coming to faith in God, because of oppressions and killing of the gospel messengers sent by God. One holding this view then has BIG TIME problems answering the precepts of promise contained in passages such as John 6:39; 10:28; 17:12, where God has revealed:

“. . All He has given Me I should lose nothing . . .”

“My Father who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

“Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

It is my opinion that the teaching that Jesus desired to gather His children from Jerusalem, but could not because of the ruling Jews, is not the correct interpretation of the passage. It is my opinion, that God’s will and promises made concerning the salvation of His elect, will be fulfilled without fail, according to the Scriptures which reveal the Covenant promises made to the spiritual sons of God.

Jesus Christ upbraided the rulers of Jerusalem for their unbelieving ways and their history of murdering the prophets; their attempts to suppress the gospel; as well as their wicked thinking that they could prevent God from gathering His people unto Himself.

But in fact, their wicked ways did not not prevent God from saving every single soul chosen to be redeemed in Christ.

Jesus was not lamenting over His will not being achieved in Jerusalem, or the fact that He could not gather His elect out from those in the city, but Jesus lamented over the wickedness of men; namely the rulers and powers in Jerusalem, who thought they could thwart the will of God.

Another example I will give, that is anecdotal in nature, is a teaching my husband and I received while we were still in a dispensational church.

We had been reading the Scriptures, and studying Jesus’ teachings regarding marriage and divorce and remarriages. (Primary passage: Matthew 19:1-12) After examining all the various passages, we came to the conclusion that God hates divorce and forbids remarriage if there is a divorce. We asked our Elders for their views, and they answered us with the same philosophical notion that you propose, namely:

Yes, God presents moral “ideals” in the Scriptures and Law, but they are not realized, for men cannot live up to them. So God is loving and being understanding of mens' limitations, often permits (decrees?) divorce and remarriage, despite Jesus’ teachings. In other words, God does not hold men accountable to abide by His Law. (This is a form of antinomianism.)

Now, I really do not want to discuss this particular subject. I only bring it up, because it reveals the mindset behind thinking God can will one thing "idealistically", but also often changes His will to accomodate reality. To me, this philosophy depicts a mutablility and double-mindedness in Almighty God . . . and I say this cannot be!

God’s precepts are good and they are given to man in the form of command, for man's good. When man decided he did not need to heed God’s precepts, he set himself in opposition to God’s will and brought harm and great evil upon himself.

God has decreed two consequences to this rebellion to His will:

1. Justice will be done and sinners will be punished.

2. Grace will be extended to an elect, who will be spared from this divine justice.

How?

By the fulfillment of the commands. By the fulfillment of God’s will. By the only Person proven able and willing to perfectly follow the will of God . . . Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ obeyed all God’s precepts as representative and Mediator for the elect God gave Him. Jesus Christ worked atoning grace on their behalf by suffering the wrath of God and their deserved deaths on the cross; fulfilling God’s justice. Everything God willed and commanded men to do, as they ought, Jesus Christ achieved.

So when I look at the precepts of God, and see His perfect will revealed, I always look next to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to appreciate how God’s will has been done.

I don’t look to myself or to other sinners, for God’s will has not been done by any of us. But this failure on our part, does not constitute failure in God to execute His will. Our sins have not come close to thwarting the will of God, for Jesus Christ has overcome sin, death, and the devil.

So why even entertain the idea that God has two wills? Where is a good reason to do so?

What about the precept, "Thou shalt not murder," and God's decree that His Son would be murdered? This is a case in which the precept does not match the decree. Won't you agree?

The precept says what men ought not to do. You and I agree about this much.

Lawless men did what they ought not to do, but they acted not only in their unbelief, but also according to the will of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who decreed that the Christ would suffer unto death on behalf of the elect, at their hands.

This subject is not a matter of God willing two different things, but is actually revelation that God works His will despite wickedness. It matters little what man has chosen or not chosen to do, if God has determined the actions of all men will fulfill His purposes and good pleasure.

So, I believe your question to be off-track. Of course the men involved in the scourging and crucifixion of the Christ sinned and did wrong according to the precepts of God. But God decreed the details of the cross and meant it for good. This reveals a dichotomy between God and sinners, not a dichotomy within the heart and will of God.

Here are others:

• 
  
  God's precept is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), but God's decree was to raise up adversity against David from his own house, to take David's wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor, who would lie with David's wives in the sight of the sun.
  
• God's precept is the blessing of his people by other nations (Genesis 12:3), but God's decree was "[turn] their heart to hate his people" (Psalm 105:25).
  
• God's precept to Pharaoh was to let His people go (Exodus 5:1, 8:1), but God's decree was to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21).
  
• God's precept was for David not to take a military census of the people (2 Samuel 24:10), but God decreed that He would be angry with David and to move him to do just that (2 Samuel 24:1).
  
• God's precept is "Thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13), but God decreed that His only Son would be murdered, "being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Ac 2:23), "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28).

In each of these examples, the precept does NOT match the decree.

No, in each of these examples we see sinners not living up to God’s precepts, and Godly decreeing the appropriate judgements and consequences. In all these examples, it must be kept in mind, that men possessing moral agency were responsible before God to obey His precepts (will). The fact that man is fallen and is unable to live according to these precepts is the doctrine of Total Depravity. And God’s purpose for repeatedly giving us examples of the depravity of men, is to give His saints appreciation for His grace, that overrules the sinful actions of men.

I really think you are looking too much at the sinners, than looking for the purposes of God in all these events.

I agree, where God's commands (broken or not) comprise God's prescriptive will, and the will of God that cannot be affected or changed is His decretive will.

God’s will, both perceptive and decretive has been done by Jesus Christ. That is the bottom line of all this . . .The Son of God has demonstrated perfect humanity, as the Son of Man . . . and His righteousness under the Law (ALL the Godly precepts) has now been imputed to His elect. Forensically applied to their records before God as if they had never sinned and worked this righteousness on their own. That is God’s grace!

In God’s eyes, the elect sons of God have done His will on earth, as it is done in heaven . . . assuring them they will be judged considered worthy in the final resurrection and will share in the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, in Christ.

So if all God's will has been achieved, why even contemplate God having two wills? The excuse it supposedly provides, is not needed, is it?

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

No, it's still there.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2037163&postcount=2387

After reading the entire thread between you and Knight I don't think giving you a reply would be very fruitfully. I am BIG on being teachable and I was hoping for a glimmer of that trait in you while I was reading.... but alas.

You are a far better debater than I and it is clear you have very strong views and opinions on the OV ( wrong thought they be). I would just be saying things that you have premeditated replies for and we would end up in the same place as you and Knight!

 

[Hilston]

After reading the entire thread between you and Knight I don't think giving you a reply would be very fruitfully.

No reply was requested or required.

I am BIG on being teachable and I was hoping for a glimmer of that trait in you while I was reading.... but alas.

This doesn't make sense. If you are big on being teachable, then be teachable. Whether or not others are teachable is irrelevant. I learn lots of things from intransigent people. Do you insist on only learning from teachable people? It's irrational.

You are a far better debater than I and it is clear you have very strong views and opinions on the OV ( wrong thought they be). I would just be saying things that you have premeditated replies for and we would end up in the same place as you and Knight!

You're apparently a better predictor of the future than the Open View's God. And if you're so teachable, then try to get past personality issues. What if Paul's students had focused more on his personality than his arguments? If you rationally process the arguments in my dialogue with Knight, there's a lot to be learned there about the irrationality of Open Theism and the soundness and clarity of the determinist view. It has been shown time and again how the very best the Open View can offer is unable to bear the scrutiny of sound logic and clear exegesis.

Death to all invading socialist Canada geese,
Hilston

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Food for thought on the two wills of God discussion:

The usual way they are distinguished without introducing contrariety into the will of God is to acknowledge the simple point that the word "will" is used in two different ways. In one sense He is said to will something volitionally. This is God's will properly speaking. "God works all things after the counsel of His own will." There is also the extended use of the word "will" when a certain course of action is said to be the will of God. "This is the will of God concerning you, even your sanctification." In this latter sense the word "will" is being used morally, not volitionally. The two words may be used without contradiction or confusion if we keep in mind that the secret will refers to what shall be and the revealed will concerns what should be.
The moral will is not God’s will in a proper sense as He doesn’t will it to happen, but demands it of us.

I have long lost the original source of this, but it resonates with me.

AMR

 

[tetelestai]

Death to all invading socialist Canada geese

Have you been hanging around Dan Onorato again?