God's will

[Jon_]

The Lord is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." How can this verse be true, without free-will?

It is true for it refers to God's elect, which are they that the Lord is not willing should perish; therefore, he sent his Son Jesus Christ to die a sinner's death for our sake, for his love is so great for his children that he has by grace saved us through faith in Jesus Christ that his mighty name might be glorified forever and ever. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[BBAS 64]

Right the text is clear...

Why make "all" become "all the elect" or "all who this letter is written to?"

Good Day, Forest

As the opening verse says:

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:


First Peter opens:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


It was not written to "all", unless you define the use of all, please do so.... BTW all is never a noun.

You never answered the first question, please explain the pronoun forms in verse 9 in 2 Peter3.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[CCWoody]

But if man has free-will, then many will use that free-will to not choose God, and still His will will not be accomplished.

My sister, if you haven't already discovered this for yourself, most Christians are more concerned that they have free will, i.e. the ability to thwart God's will and bring his counsel to nothing, than they are that God's will be done, even if they pray:

"Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
thy will be done...."

It is proof that Arminianism cannot be accomplished in prayer to God simply for the fact that we are taught to pray that His will be done, not laud that man's own will be done.

But, all of that aside, if this verse in 2 Peter is really to mean that God is not willing that any perish, meaning the whole human race without any exception, then how are we explain the fact that the Lord was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some whom He knew would repent in the face of those miracles? (Matthe 11:21)

How are we to understand that the Lord spoke in parables so that people would not discern and understand so that they would NEVER turn and have their sins forgiven? (Mark 4:11-12)

It sure does seem as if 2 Peter really does mean that the Father is unwilling that any perish that the Son was actively working against the Father. Are we suppose that the Father and Son are at war with each other? Is this what the Trinity really means to Arminians?

 

[one4christ]

Some day When Jesus Christ Splits the Eastern skies, and comes to rapture his bride out of this world, the real truth will be at last known.

And won't a whole lot of folks who Thought they had the one, and only absolutely correct Biblically sound doctrine be surprised, and won't a whole lot of them same folks who Thought they were saved be weeping, and crying, and begging him to be merciful to them, just hearing him say, depart from me, I never knew you.

What's gonna really be special though is all the folks who them other folks Thought had no right, or chance to ever be saved standing there hearing Jesus say to them welcome you good and faithful servants, enter into the joy of the Lord.

 

[CCWoody]

Hi, PentecostalEvangelist, a.k.a. many names.

Poor fellow. You just can't stay away, can you?

 

[Forest]

My sister, if you haven't already discovered this for yourself, most Christians are more concerned that they have free will, i.e. the ability to thwart God's will and bring his counsel to nothing, than they are that God's will be done, even if they pray:

"Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
thy will be done...."

It is proof that Arminianism cannot be accomplished in prayer to God simply for the fact that we are taught to pray that His will be done, not laud that man's own will be done.

But, all of that aside, if this verse in 2 Peter is really to mean that God is not willing that any perish, meaning the whole human race without any exception, then how are we explain the fact that the Lord was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some whom He knew would repent in the face of those miracles? (Matthe 11:21)

How are we to understand that the Lord spoke in parables so that people would not discern and understand so that they would NEVER turn and have their sins forgiven? (Mark 4:11-12)

It sure does seem as if 2 Peter really does mean that the Father is unwilling that any perish that the Son was actively working against the Father. Are we suppose that the Father and Son are at war with each other? Is this what the Trinity really means to Arminians?

Jesus prayed to the Father asking that His burden be removed, yet also acknowledged the Father's will, not His be done. Therefore, what is wrong in asking for something, and at the same time saying "if it be God's will?"

If I have free will, why does that thwart God's will if I acknowledge that I am only able to make choices because God allows me to and that in any case, however He desires it, it will be done His way?

Is "free-will" completely non-exisstent in the "Reformed view" or does it mean something else than is commonly understood?

 

[cygnusx1]

Jesus prayed to the Father asking that His burden be removed, yet also acknowledged the Father's will, not His be done. Therefore, what is wrong in asking for something, and at the same time saying "if it be God's will?"

If I have free will, why does that thwart God's will if I acknowledge that I am only able to make choices because God allows me to and that in any case, however He desires it, it will be done His way?

Is "free-will" completely non-exisstent in the "Reformed view" or does it mean something else than is commonly understood?

a better understanding ......... at least from the Reformed View would be , Free Agency .... not free-will .

we always will freely , without compulsion ........... no-one forces us to act outside our wills , yet God has devices for "making" us willing.

Total free-will would be the power to thwart not only Satan but God as well , this is how many think , but it finds no place in scripture.


Greetings Cygnus

 

[CCWoody]

Jesus prayed to the Father asking that His burden be removed, yet also acknowledged the Father's will, not His be done. Therefore, what is wrong in asking for something, and at the same time saying "if it be God's will?"

True, but that was not my point. The problem is that Arminianism teaches and believes that man can and does thwart God's will all the time. And, though it is kinda pathetic from the fact that man always gets his will, but that God almost never gets his, the Arminian still prays "Thy will be done." Why bother to even pray it when the Arminian knows that God's will is not done, but man's will? It simply demonstrates that an Arminian can't actually practice his theology. If that were the case, he would never bother to pray for something that God can't do, like force his will over man's will. As it is, according to Arminianism, it is simply empty words.

If I have free will, why does that thwart God's will if I acknowledge that I am only able to make choices because God allows me to and that in any case, however He desires it, it will be done His way?

Well, let's take salvation for instance. Arminians teach and believe that it is God's express will and desire to save everyone. Nevertheless, the fact is that the vast majority of our fellow man is perishing in their sins. Obviously, God's will is not done, but man's will. Jesus, after having paid the penalty for the entire human race, now gets to watch the seeds of his efforts one by one perish into everlasting flames. Man's free will thwarts God's will and plan for man.

Is "free-will" completely non-exisstent in the "Reformed view" or does it mean something else than is commonly understood?

That all depends on what you mean by free will. For most Arminians, yes, that type of free will we deny exists.

 

[oworm]

Hi, PentecostalEvangelist, a.k.a. many names.

Poor fellow. You just can't stay away, can you?

yEP ItS AlL iN THe sYnTaX iSNt iT?

 

[frumanchu]

Right the text is clear...

Why make "all" become "all the elect" or "all who this letter is written to?"

You were not necessarily correct when you stated earlier that all the epistles are written to believers. They are written to people who confess Christ. There is a difference.

In the case of 2 Peter 3:9, as was rightly pointed out already, the "all" refers back to the "us." In order for the Arminian "free will" usage of this verse to stand, the case would have to be made that the "us" refers to all mankind. The context of the verse does not support this at all.

The point of the passage is that the reason Christ has not yet come in judgement is that the full number of the elect have not yet come to repentance. If Christ were to come and judgement were to occur before that happened, then God would thwart His own purpose in election as there would be elect individuals who were never saved.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

ion

Thank you for the information...

A few things I noted in the booklet you quoted...

I don't see how it is compelling that "all" only means the elect just because the letter is addressed to believers. All the letters in the Bible are addressed to believers. It wouldn't really make sense that there should be some letters in the Bible that were addressed to unbelievers. Note that the text of the bible had to be changed to more fully support the booklet's premise...by adding "us" in several places in the verse.



This next quote...why could it not be said that He desires humanity to have free will and that desire is greater than His desire to force everyone into heaven?...also, this quote has the implication that He wants people in hell, since He has the power to save all men if He chose to. Free-will has the implication that the choices a person makes could cause that person to end up in hell.



I am not trying to disagreeable, but to understand...

answers appreciated.

Forest, I don't understand how you can claim to believe the whole Bible. Example: the Bible says very clearly in many places that God works all things according to His own will. More than that, it says He works all things according to the "counsel" of His own will; "counsel" signifying that His will is in accord with the element of all His wisdom. That is, it is not His will according to what He has decided what to do or have done after consulting with men or angels about any matter. It is according to the "counsel" of "His own" will. Therfore you don't, you believe that. Instead of believing that, you rejoice in doctrine that denies it altogether. If you believed the Bible, you would say, God works "all" things after the counsel of "His" will. Therefore, if He wants someone to be saved, they will be saved, and if they are not saved, it will be because they were a vessel of wrath "fitted" for destruction. But you don't believe either one. You deny that everyone God wishes to be saved will be saved, and since you believe He wants everyone saved, you deny what the Bible says about some being vessels of wrath "fitted" for destruction.

If a hurricane or tornado kills 1000 people, you probably don't believe that was God's will, but a blind force of nature. Therefore, you don't believe the verse that says, "the bright cloud is turned round about by His counsel to do whatever He commands on the face of the whole earth." You don't really believe the verse that says, "Fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind fulfilling His word." Do you? With your Arminian doctreine, you can't really believe that "whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven and in earth; in the seas and all deep places." You can't believe that, because if an unsaved man dies in a tornado when he is 25, you can't believe that since God (you think) wanted him to be saved, the tornado could not have killed him according to God's will before he was saved. Therefore, you don't believe it when the Bible says, "stormy wind fulfilling His word."

 

[Forest]

ion Forest, I don't understand how you can claim to believe the whole Bible.

You start with this when I ask a question and expect me to take you seriously?

I don't think you even answered the question I was asking.

 

[BBAS 64]

Jesus prayed to the Father asking that His burden be removed, yet also acknowledged the Father's will, not His be done. Therefore, what is wrong in asking for something, and at the same time saying "if it be God's will?"

If I have free will, why does that thwart God's will if I acknowledge that I am only able to make choices because God allows me to and that in any case, however He desires it, it will be done His way?

Is "free-will" completely non-exisstent in the "Reformed view" or does it mean something else than is commonly understood?

Good day, Forest

Free will commonly understood??

The ability to choose between a various amounts choices that are presented to him in any given circumstance, and must always chose that which represents his strongest desire or inclination. Those are directly and by necessity affected by nature, affections, and predispositions.

Baker’s Theological dictionary:

Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

Webster’s:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Spurgeon: On God’s will and man’s: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm
Pink: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=255

Seeing our will is constrained by external forces and causes we have no control over I really start to question how free it really is?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Rolf Ernst]

You start with this when I ask a question and expect me to take you seriously?

I don't think you even answered the question I was asking.

I answered your question in the sense that you needed an answer. Why do I say that? Well, the things in my response were those things you need to examine yourself concerning before you begin critiquing and criticising the faith of other people. Why don't you closely consider my first response to you. Realize that I made some valid points about how the doctrine you seem to prefer contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture. Until you are willing to do that, I don't think you are teachable. So examine your tendency to accept some teachings which are blatantly contrary to other Scriptures. Proper reverence to Scripture involves, in part, an unwillingness to leave and accept a contradictory tension between Sciptures. Sooo, why don't you begin resolving those tensions between your ideas and Scripture by examining your acceptance of the idea that God's will is that each and every individual should be saved with the Scripture that says that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). You see, you have made an assertion, saying God wants each and evey individual to be saved. And the Scripture has made an assertion: God works all things after the counsel of His own will. Both cannot be true. Either you are wrong in saying God wants each and everyone to be saved, or else the Bible is wrong when it says that God works all thnings after the counsel of His own will. Who is righgt? How do you relieve the tension between your doctrine and God's word. If you take Scripture seriously enough to want to relieve that tension, you are showing proper reverence for God's Word. If not, maybe you are just beating a drum.
Figure out how to resolve this one issue.

 

[Forest]

BBAS 64, thank you for your answer on free will...I think I agree with it.

Rolf Ernst...everyone else answered my questions...not you...you were only interested in making a personal attack...not even based on what I said but making up things you think I am thinking...I'm not here to "critique or criticize" Reformed doctrine as you accuse me of, but to understand it...I think my posts reflect that, Here is what I got from your first post...just attacks...

ion Forest, I don't understand how you can claim to believe the whole Bible.

Therfore you don't, you believe that.

But you don't believe either one.

......you probably don't believe that was God's will, but a blind force of nature.

Therefore, you don't believe the verse that says,...

You don't really believe the verse that says,......

you can't really believe that......

You can't believe that......

you can't believe that since God......

(you think)

Therefore, you don't believe it......

see a pattern?

Yes I do believe the Whole Bible...Rolf Ernst please be careful about assuming so much.

Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Psalm 35:11
False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

Proverbs 6:19
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

BBAS 64, thank you for your answer on free will...I think I agree with it.

Rolf Ernst...everyone else answered my questions...not you...you were only interested in making a personal attack...not even based on wha
















Yes I do believe the Whole Bible...Rolf Ernst please be careful about assuming so much.

Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Psalm 35:11
False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

Proverbs 6:19
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

You are misrepresenting my posts. Why? You make accusations against me, but you find it convenient to cut up my post so the context of what I said is lost. The misapply the scriprture verses which you highlight in blue. Just because I responded to your first post in a way you didn't expect, you became belligerent. If you really wanted to understand Reformed doctrine, you would examine your contradictory asssumptions.

Again, you say you believe the whole Bible. Well good. Then explain how you believe both of the following: You say that God doesn't want any individual of mankind to perish, Yet you iknow that many do perish. Therefore, explain how you also believe that God "works all things after the counsel of His own will." Which is true? You know very well that there are many who perish, So if that is true, and you say that God works all things after the counsel of His own will, how are both true at the same time. This is not a personal attack. It is a question

 

[cygnusx1]

There is Variety in God's will ................ see Calvin on Ezekiel .

I think Fru has quoted it early on in this thread ............

*cygnus goes off and looks for his soap box ... *

 

[Forest]

There is Variety in God's will ................ see Calvin on Ezekiel .

I think Fru has quoted it early on in this thread ............

*cygnus goes off and looks for his soap box ... *

I didn't see the quote earlier...do you have one available?

Thanks.

 

[Forest]

Again, you say you believe the whole Bible. Well good. Then explain how you believe both of the following: You say that God doesn't want any individual of mankind to perish, Yet you iknow that many do perish. Therefore, explain how you also believe that God "works all things after the counsel of His own will." Which is true? You know very well that there are many who perish, So if that is true, and you say that God works all things after the counsel of His own will, how are both true at the same time. This is not a personal attack. It is a question

Those three can be true at the same time if God's will is to allow us to make some of our own choices.

I think the question you are asking about how all three can be true at the same time was what I was asking earlier...God does indeed "work(s) all things after the cousel of His own will...

"Why could it not be the case that free-will is more important to Him, than to force His will on people? (election)"

free-will not meaning we have the ability to thwart God's will, but only that God allows us to make some choices.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Those three can be true at the same time if God's will is to allow us to make some of our own choices.

I think the question you are asking about how all three can be true at the same time was what I was asking earlier...God does indeed "work(s) all things after the cousel of His own will...

"Why could it not be the case that free-will is more important to Him, than to force His will on people? (election)"

free-will not meaning we have the ability to thwart God's will, but only that God allows us to make some choices.

If free will is more important than to force His will on people, as you say, how do you factor that in with "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Ps. 110:3) ? Also we have Jesus parable of the kingdom of heaven wherein the fishermen haulf fish in, throw some of them away, and keep others. That is a pretty good description, I thik of the way He works. Also--in John 6:44, Jesus uses the term draw as fishermen speak of drawing fish out of the water, and the verb draw is a verb of force that woujld be used in dragging.

Doesn't Ps 110:3 teach that there is a power exercised by God that is both prior to their willingness that is effective to make His people willing?

What about those verses wherein His people speak of their repentance as a work of God's power (in Lam. 5:21) and the work of God opening the heart of Lydia, the seller of purple so that she attended to the word preached?