The ability of God - Does God always get His will done?

98cwitr said:

Why would an Omniscient God, in your mind, issue a directive He knows will be refused? To bring about His Will while simultaneously righteously condemning (or simply disciplining) the refuser?

Click to expand...

God is omniscient He knows who will obey, He knew that Adam and Eve would fall ...The plan of redemption was in place before creation..he knew the jews would go after false gods.. God is glorified in His judgements and in His mercy ...

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Where is this written in God's Word? Where did God say this ?

Click to expand...

That is a lengthy discussion, which I thought you would agree with my example at first.
Do you believe Job was spiritually better after all this happened?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

I googled it to see what came up.
Results for Where does His Word say crucified before the world began?

About 22 results (0.81 seconds)
Search Results
Web results
ETERNAL SECURITY—God's Promise Before the World Began

https://www. [break_link] soulwinning.info › books › dave_stewart › eternal_security
Notice the words, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In God's mind, Jesus had been crucified before the world began, which is why God was able to promise ... The Bible says that Stephen said, "I see the heavens opened.
'REVEAL YOUR GLORY' #Sermon... - Rabboni Centre ...

https://www. [break_link] facebook.com › rabboniministries › posts › reveal-your-glory-s...
Nov 24, 2018 - ... with Him [He was crucified before the world began] if you do not understand ... When the Word [Christ] comes you begin to know your glory that is the ... it because of their ignorance, that is why Apostle Paul start by saying in ...
THE WORD RESURRECTS... - SevenFold Holy Spirit ...

https://hi-in. [break_link] facebook.com › posts › the-word-resurrects-sermontuesdayser...
Remember Jesus was crucified before the world began and He was raised, ... Word and do as it says he is like a wise builder for his foundation is concrete for it ...

Click to expand...

yeshuaslavejeff, I would much prefer citations of chapters and verses, please. Clarity is lost without chapter and verse citations.

I isolated a single Biblical reference determinable from your list - without visiting the sites to which you link - the first item in your list. I found the Apostle John's writing of "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8, KJV).

We need to examine the grammar of the sentence (clause), that is, Revelation 13:8 in it's entirety.

In grammar, a complex sentence comprises an independent clause with one or more dependent clauses.

Within these clauses, there is a subject and a predicate.

A subject is a noun, and the subject can be a simple subject or complex subject.

Within a predicate is an action - a verb with potentially adverbs - affecting the subject.

The predicate may contain one or more object nouns which are referred to as a simple object as well as a complex object. A complex object is a simple object with descriptors identifying the simple object, such as adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc that apply to the object noun.

Continuing with the matter of objects, here are classifications of objects, (1) an object may be a "direct object" operated upon by the subject, and (2) an object may be an "indirect object" operated upon by the subject receiving a "direct object"; nonetheless, objects are operated upon by the subject.

A verb must be transitive for objects to be in the clause/sentence.

A "direct object" must exist before an "indirect object"; furthermore, an "indirect object" receives a "direct object".

With all these grammatical rules firmly established and verifiable, here is a simple restatement whereby everything in parenthesis may potentially be a phrase:

A_SUBJECT(noun) ACTS(verb) ON_AN_OBJECT_OR_OBJECTS(noun).

Now, it's time to apply the above grammar mechanics to the Apostle John's writing of "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8, KJV).

There is independent clause of "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him".

And there is a dependent clause of "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".

The dependent clause contains a subject of "whose names" which is dependent upon the subject of the independent clause of "all that dwell upon the earth".

The dependent clause contains a predicate of "are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".

The action portion is "are not written". The English word "written" is the Greek word "gegraptai" ("grapho" G1125) which is transitive as per the Apostle John's usage here under discussion.

This leaves two complex objects:
(1) "in the book of life of the Lamb slain"
(2) "from the foundation of the world"

Each of the complex objects contain the specific noun that makes it a complex object, and here is the identification of these nouns:
(1) the "book" is the object noun in "in the book of life of the Lamb slain"
(2) the "world" is the object noun in "from the foundation of the world"

The balance of words in each complex object follow the grammatical object rules. There is much description for the "book" in it's complex object. There is description for the "world" in it's complex object.

While I am uncertain whether both complex objects are "direct objects", I share my suspicion that:
(1) the "book" complex object is the "indirect object"
(2) the "world" complex object is the "direct object"

Now, both of these complex objects, nouns, are applied to the subject of the dependent clause, the subject being "whose names".

In this case, the complex objects can have their locations within the dependent clause interchanged without affecting the meaning.

The results of application of the above grammatical rules illuninate that Revelation 13:8 states (1) that all who dwell upon the earth shall worship the beast occuring in the independent clause and (2) an exception is provided for people that shall NOT worship the beast occuring in the dependent clause.

Now, dissecting the dependent clause of Revelation 13:8 grammatically, we find that worshippers of the bease are people (1) "whose names", (2) "are not written", (3) "in the book of life of the Lamb slain", (4) "from the foundation of the world".

As a result, the NASB using legitimate grammar mechanics has Revelation 13:8 rendered "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, [everyone] whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain".

It is illegal grammatically to take the complex object of "in the book of life of the Lamb slain" then split it into it's constituent parts to extract the "the Lamb slain" then apply that to the next complex object of "from the foundation of the world".

It is certain that the Lamb was NOT slain continuously from the foundation of the world for the concept of the Lamb being slain continuously from the foundation of the world is absent from scripture, not even Revelation 13:8.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

The Father sends who He Chooses to send. He utterly, completely , always does what is best in His Absolutely Perfect Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding which are all in His Essence, not as if separate parts in Him.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, sometimes the wrong people decide on their own to take on the task.

RDKirk said:

Why is it necessary to cling to "free will?"

I would think that if free will were so important, there would be two or three direct witnesses in scripture spelling it out and teaching it directly.

On the other hand, there are two or three direct scriptural witnesses to predestination.

This doesn't seem to have been an issue for the early church. Paul mostly denied "free will."

It seems to have only become an issue around the fourth century when Augustine argued the point with pagans.

Click to expand...

If there's no free will, then how can God justly punish anyone? It only became an issue starting with Augustine because the church fathers before him affirm freew Augustine did also at first but reverted to his determinism he learned as a cult member prior to his conversion.

RaymondG said:

The letter killeth, but spirit maketh alive. The Father waits for us to return from our adventures in wasting away our inheritance...It is His will that we return....and we will. How long we take in riotous living is of no consequence to him...for He sits outside of time.

US asking for our inheritance to waste and receiving it from God, doesnt mean we are exacting our will over His.....ANd it doesnt mean that He will not, in the end, gather his children together as hens.

The party is there waiting for us......the only thing we have some say over, is how long it take us to come to your senses.

Good news, Heaven is waiting for you now, if you would receive it.

Click to expand...

Or we can stay away and become non believers. He doesn't force anyone to remain in him.
If you have to receive it, you do indeed have a free will.

the LORD's will is always accomplished fully and without fail.

the LORD's prescribed commands on His creatures...that's a different story.

renniks said:

If there's no free will, then how can God justly punish anyone?

Click to expand...

That is only a "problem" for people who intend to subject God to their own judgment of righteousness.

renniks said:

Or we can stay away and become non believers. He doesn't force anyone to remain in him.
If you have to receive it, you do indeed have a free will.

Click to expand...

"Receive", mentioned in your final sentence, is an interesting word. Let's explore "receive".

"RECEIVE" DEFINITION BY EXAMPLE:

A boxer receives punches - not by choice - but in the fury of the fight.

The pedestrian received a series of traumatic injuries - not by choice - but a result of the collision.

A lover receives a love letter - not by choice - but in gladness.

"RECEIVE" DEFINITION BY DICTIONARY:

1. TRANSITIVE VERB When you receive something, you get it after someone gives it to you or sends it to you. (Collins COBUILD English Usage © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 2004, 2011, 2012)

There is a keyword in the definition, which is "after".

"RECEIVE" USAGE IN SCRIPTURE:

"Peter [said] to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.'" (Acts 2:38-39, this was Peter's response after the people who were pierced to the heart by Peter's proclamation inquired "Brethren, what shall we do?" in Acts 2:14-37)

Peter issued the command "think differently from now on" (repent) and the command "be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" and here is where "receive" comes in, "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" which is an act of God.

renniks, you wrote "He doesn't force anyone to remain in him", yet Lord Jesus decisively declares that "no one is able to snatch" us believers out of His Hands with these precious words "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:27-30).

renniks, "no one" means "no one", so your sentence "we can stay away and become non believers" is inaccurate according to the Lord of Glory.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

And what is God's Point ? He Says to you(pl) "Choose Today Who You Will Serve",, possibly every day ...
At least it remains on record, written, in His Word.
So, everyone chooses who to serve - Jesus, or some other.
Serving Jesus, as He Says, all of our choices are brought subject to Him, or come from Him.
We either willingly and joyously serve Him,
or we serve something/someone else.

Click to expand...

You wrote "He Says to you(pl) 'Choose Today Who You Will Serve',, possibly every day".

That appears to be an uncited reference to "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the YHWH" (Joshua 24:15).

Please, yeshuaslavejeff, cite chapter and verse.

The Joshua 24:15 passage does not contain "free will" to choose YHWH.

Joshua addresses "disagreeable" only for the Israelites not including Joshua's house; moreover, Joshua does NOT address "agreeable" for the Israelites.

The passage reveals that Joshua commanded the people who found it disagreeable to serve YHWH to do one of the two following:

- choose the evil ("gods") on one side of the river

- or

- choose the evil ("gods") on the other side of the river

Joshua concludes with a declarative statement indicating the power of God with "as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH" (Joshua 24:15).

There is no "free will" for Joshua does not say that anyone chooses YHWH God in Joshua 24:15.

Joshua 24:15 is a proof text that a person can only choose evil at best, but, even in that, a command does not convey ability.

Kermos said:

You wrote "He Says to you(pl) 'Choose Today Who You Will Serve',, possibly every day".

That appears to be an uncited reference to "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the YHWH" (Joshua 24:15).

Click to expand...

This is in the same vein as Paul's Romans discourse on slavery to sin or slavery to righteousness.

The "given" in both instances is that everyone is a slave to something, and a person gets only a choice of masters--and that choice is possible only by the grace of God.

There is no concept in scripture that the will of man is "free."

"Free" is an absolute term, like "unique" and "pregnant").

Free will exists only when moral agency is neither constrained nor results in consequences by another moral agent. If a person's moral agency results in consequences imposed by another moral agent, that is not "free will." If a person's moral agency is constrained to only a choice of masters, that is not "free will."

RDKirk said:

That is only a "problem" for people who intend to subject God to their own judgment of righteousness.

Click to expand...

It's a problem because it does not fit with the biblical picture of God.

renniks said:

It's a problem because it does not fit with the biblical picture of God.

Click to expand...

Sure it does.

As long as one does not try to anthropomorphize God.

Back when my daughter was small and we had our first family dog, she asked me, "Papa, does Jack think he's a human?"
I told her, "No, Jack sees us as dogs."

A dog can't comprehend homo sapiens any more than homo sapiens can truly comprehend God. Anthropomorphizing God is to some extent unavoidable, but we need to keep in mind that we're doing it and avoid letting it color our theology.

"God is love" does not necessarily mean He does what we we would do as "love."

And even what we would do as "love" can be incomprehensible to those who don't have our level of comprehension. Does a dog understand how neutering is an act of love? Does a small child understand how a vaccination is an act of love? Or how restraining their behavior is an act of love?

We run into the issue as our children cross into their teen years: "You don't love me! If you loved me you would let me do what I want to do!"

Even when we're dealing with another human being, something as over-emphasized in our culture as the concept of "love" cannot be fully comprehended from human being to human being.

How much hubris does it take for a person to make a judgment on what God's love must necessarily entail?

Kermos said:

1. TRANSITIVE VERB When you receive something, you get it after someone gives it to you or sends it to you. (Collins COBUILD English Usage © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 2004, 2011, 2012)

There is a keyword in the definition, which is "after".

Click to expand...

After the Spirit convicts us, we receive or refuse him. A gift isn't a gift if it's forced, it's a demand. In the case of salvation, it would be spiritual rape.

RDKirk said:

Sure it does.

As long as one does not try to anthropomorphize God.

Click to expand...

We are limited to our human minds. Since we can not fully understand God, anything we can say in our finite language is only figurative, if you really think about it. And that's ok. It's probably why Jesus used parables, because they often are easier to understand than trying to put words the infinite.

Kermos said:

You wrote "He Says to you(pl) 'Choose Today Who You Will Serve',, possibly every day".

That appears to be an uncited reference to "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHWH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the YHWH" (Joshua 24:15).

Please, yeshuaslavejeff, cite chapter and verse.

The Joshua 24:15 passage does not contain "free will" to choose YHWH.

Joshua addresses "disagreeable" only for the Israelites not including Joshua's house; moreover, Joshua does NOT address "agreeable" for the Israelites.

The passage reveals that Joshua commanded the people who found it disagreeable to serve YHWH to do one of the two following:

- choose the evil ("gods") on one side of the river

- or

- choose the evil ("gods") on the other side of the river

Joshua concludes with a declarative statement indicating the power of God with "as for me and my house, we will serve YHWH" (Joshua 24:15).

There is no "free will" for Joshua does not say that anyone chooses YHWH God in Joshua 24:15.

Joshua 24:15 is a proof text that a person can only choose evil at best, but, even in that, a command does not convey ability.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's possibly the most convoluted interpretation of scripture I've ever seen.

RDKirk said:

How much hubris does it take for a person to make a judgment on what God's love must necessarily entail?

Click to expand...

It must entail what he says it does. It's amusing that the people making the " no free will" argument always assume they are among the chosen. That's impossible to know if God is just arbitrarily choosing someone unconditionally. He just doesn't say he is love, he explains what love is.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. John 15:12

How are we told to love? We are told to do good to those who hate us. Do you think God does less than what he tells us love is? He offers himself to all.

renniks said:

It must entail what he says it does. It's amusing that the people making the " no free will" argument always assume they are among the chosen. That's impossible to know if God is just arbitrarily choosing someone unconditionally. He just doesn't say he is love, he explains what love is.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. John 15:12

How are we told to love? We are told to do good to those who hate us. Do you think God does less than what he tells us love is? He offers himself to all.

Click to expand...

So, how did Jesus love them?

If Jesus loves everyone, why didn't Jesus heal everyone? Or at least the people He passed by.

For instance, the lame man that John and Peter healed at the temple after Pentecost. According to the scripture, that man had lain crippled at the temple for years and years. Jesus had to have seen him there, probably passed right by him. And not just that man, but many others at the temple. If Jesus' love is what men think love should be, why didn't Jesus heal everyone?

renniks said:

After the Spirit convicts us, we receive or refuse him. A gift isn't a gift if it's forced, it's a demand. In the case of salvation, it would be spiritual rape.

Click to expand...

Your absence of scripture citation demonstrates the vacuum of scripture for your interpretation.

Once the Spirit of God is in us believers we are born again and we are a part of the Kingdom of God and no one can snatch us out of God's hand (John 10:27-30).

King Jesus said "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29) thus declaring that belief/faith in Jesus whom the Father has sent is the work of God.

Jesus, Lord and God (John 20:28), also said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) thus the "believes" here in "who ever believes in Him shall not perish" is the work of God as Jesus mentioned (John 6:29).

We find in John 3:16 and John 6:29 that the Loving God imputes belief such that the receiver of faith SHALL NOT PERISH.

A gift remains a gift even if it is forced, so your irrelevant statement of "A gift isn't a gift if it's forced" is wrong; moreover, your "spiritual rape" phrase is not Biblical terminology, so your phrase is nothing more than part of the dung heap.

Let me reiterate valid points for you which you sliced out of the post.

"RECEIVE" DEFINITION BY EXAMPLE:

A boxer receives punches - not by choice - but in the fury of the fight.

The pedestrian received a series of traumatic injuries - not by choice - but a result of the collision.

A lover receives a love letter - not by choice - but in gladness.

renniks said:

Wow, that's possibly the most convoluted interpretation of scripture I've ever seen.

Click to expand...

Your answer lacks scripture, so your assertion is shifting sand (Matthew 7:26-27).

God used me to perform Spirit led exegesis of passage where Joshua tells the Israelites to choose the gods on this side or that side of the river (Joshua 24:15) post, so it's not interpretation.