• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is God active at all in the reprobate?

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
cygnusx1 said:
but to assert God commands sinners but He doesn't desire they obey is just plain Stupidity of the highest order , as I think most Christians reading this would agree.

I consider this a grave insult, as you have not even made a pretense of trying to show how my arguments are faulty in this regard. You have simply countered that I am wrong, made even more assertions to the effect of God has multiple desires, then reasserted your position, and ultimately ignored my strongest arguments, instead leveling accusations of hyper-Calvinism, sentimentalism (huh?), and now stupidity. Not to mention you make another fallacious argument: argumentum ad populum. Since you cannot refute my argument with either reason or Scripture, you will simply appeal to "popularity" to make your point. Aside from being fallacious, you also make a very big assumption that the majority of readers of this thread maintain your position.

I think that after reading the devastating blows your position has taken, few would be willing to so quickly side with you.

cygnusx1 said:
I will of course continue to update my thread on The Gospel Offer as and when I have time , and I just ask that we leave without animosity.

If you intention in that thread is simply to quote previous Reformed theologians verbatum and allow them to speak for themselves, then I can find no cause to continue this discussion. However, as I have already said, if you continue to promote this doctrine as scriptural and encourage others to take up your position, then I have no choice but to repudiate you and argue against your points.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
cygnusx1 said:
Sure , I admit openly that what God commanded Pharoah was completely the reverse of what He had decreed for Pharoah.
cygnusx1 said:
I Know that God's Decree is mysterious , containing both a permissive aspect and an effectual side.

But this case of Pharoah does not deny my main premise.

That it is pleasing to God , Pleasing to His will that all men , that includes Pharoah , Repent.

Yet because God is -pleased- with a thing it does not follow that it must of necessity come forth.

God is pleased whenever we obey Him , but for a FURTHER DESIRE IN GOD , we always would please Him.


Clarification .

Actually , the more I think about it the more I realise that that which God commanded of Pharoah was actually that which God truly desired .

Now some will say , "ah , God had a desire to harden Pharoah and destroy him , not to simply release the Hebrews , so God commanded something different to that which He desired "
but did He ?

Consider the main goal of The Lord to rescue His people from Pharoah , and to establish His name across the earth , this was surely God's desire right from the beginning.

What seems to be at first confusing is that God had a further intention(desire) to bring out His people by a Mighty hand (miracles of power) and to destroy Pharoah and his army in the process.

What I understand from this is there may be a number of things God desires when commanding , calling sinners to Repent , but it in no way undermines the genuine Desire of God that all men should repent and be saved.... else the Gospel would only be given to the Elect.

I no more deny the Gospel can and does harden sinners , (the fault is all theirs ) than I would deny God desires all men believe and Repent and are saved.

The real problem is when the H/Calvinist denies the sincerity of the Gospel Offer (based upon Pharoah) and the Arminian denies God hardens men (ignoring Pharoah)
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
''The Scriptures distinguish between the effectual call and the external call addressed in the Word of God to all to whom that word is made known. In this sense "many are called but few are chosen." God said by his prophet (Isa. 65:12), "I called, but you did not answer;" And our Lord said, "for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9:13.) by Charles Hodge


Hyper Calvinist's are guilty of saying the Gospel is only for the Elect , they quote Matt 9:13 to attempt to show God only sent the Gospel for The Elect ........... they make no real distinction between the Outer Call (many were called but few are chosen) and the inner call (I did not come to call the righteous but sinners)

Distorted Calvinism like this makes the Outer Call utterly meaningless ......... lip service may be paid to it , but it is clear that they deny the Gospel is meant for any other than the Elect. :doh:

Instead of whosoever will ............. it is "whosoever is elect" let him come. :D
 
Upvote 0

5solas

Ephesians 2:8.9
Aug 10, 2004
1,175
91
✟24,308.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Jon_ said:
The two verses have to be applicable, of course. The two verses that I provided both spoke about those things that God has done and desires to do. The sense is specifically God's work. Allow me to put it into a syllogism to make it more clear:
Premise #1) God does everything that he desires. (Ps. 115:3)

Premise #2) God did make the wicked for the day of evil. (Prv. 16:4)
Conclusion) Therefore, God did desire to make the wicked for the day of evil.


We see that the Scripture says that God desired that the reprobate be made for destruction.



Now this time I agree because it is what God planned to do.:thumbsup:

... but because we do not know who the reprobate are, we are going to "offer" the Gospel to everyone - that's our job as ambassadors...
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
5solas said:
Now this time I agree because it is what God planned to do.:thumbsup:

... but because we do not know who the reprobate are, we are going to "offer" the Gospel to everyone - that's our job as ambassadors...

hi 5solas

while it is also true that God planned to command the Gospel be preached indiscriminately , so that whosoever will may be saved if they would believe the good news , Repent and receive Christ.

God's will that this should be so is fulfilled to the letter .

should it be argued that God will not save everybody so therefore God cannot have desired it ....... this is true in one sense only , that God has not planned or desired to save anyone without THEY THEMSELVES taking hold of the means and thus being saved.

Here is the distinction clearly laid out by another Calvinist :

IMPORTANT NOTE:


(1) God desires all PERSONS TO OBEY the gospel to be saved &
(2) God does not desire TO SAVE the reprobate.


Are these two statements contradictory?

The first principle we need to remember is that the truth of God's word is honored not in holding exclusively to one revealed truth to the exclusion of another revealed truth, but rather, in believing the whole counsel of God. So If we don't understand how both kinds of desires can be true, and must have a rational explanation for every doctrine, we should consider that we also cannot rationally explain the Trinity or the depths of mystery in the incarnation. There is certainly mystery involved here in God having desires at various levels. Let's not be hasty to draw quick conclusions when speaking of God. God is infinitely bigger than our simple understanding. Even so, I think that in this case the concept is just within our grasp. To believe, as some do, that my position makes God a "double-minded fool" is to have too small a view of God, Imho. This would be to conclude that we finite creatures must be able to grasp God's ontological essence at the level of His desires, rather than just embrace the clear "paradox" the Scripture holds forth. It may be helpful to see one as His ultimate will and the other His penultimate will. Questions of mystery such as this should really serve to increase our appreciation of God's greatness.

The following two statements are not contradictory and both are Scriptural

(1) God's desire is for all people to obey the gospel, repent and be saved

(2) God in no way desires to save the reprobate

Sentence (1) is God's revealed preceptive will toward mankind about what man should do (his duty). God desires that man obey his will. It would be hopelessly contradictory to say that God wills (commands) that the reprobate obey the gospel and say this has nothing to do with His desire at any level. Jesus even weeps over the reprobate who refuse to recognize the time of His coming to Jerusalem. He says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." If that does not express some kind of desire then I don't know what does. Note that Jesus even uses the term "wanted" here. Therefore, God's preceptive WILL for man to obey is the same as His DESIRE for them to obey, even for the reprobate. It is not saying He desires to save them Himself, it is saying He desires that they obey His preceptive commands to believe the gospel. But sentence (2) speaks specifically about what God HIMSELF does not desire to do - in this case to save the reprobate. God does not desire TO SAVE the reprobate but (1) He does desire that THEY REPENT and be saved. Of course they will not do it for they love darkness.

For God to desire both be true is as if He said, "I want you to obey because rebellion is a breach of my holy law and an offense against Me so it is deserving of my just wrath. I want you to come but you won't. And for very good and just reasons (My sovereign will) though not yet discernable to you, I refuse to do it for you. My affection and help is reserved for those in my family."

... In fact seen this way we can come very close to understanding this at a human level because we also desire things at various levels in every day life. And if finite humans have ultimate and penultimate wills concerning the same object then certainly it is not beyond God to. For example, I desire to live, but my desire is greater for my wife to live so I would lay down my life for her if it came down to it. God has reasons we cannot even comprehend, and though I don't know them, He has revealed His desires on both levels in the Scripture so I trust in His truthfulnesss regardless of whether I have full comprehension of how it can be done. But even if you cannot fully comprehend it let these truths serve to increase your appreciation of God's infinite wisdom and accept that His ways that are above your ways.

We must learn to distinguish between God's decrees and God's precepts. -- the first has to do with what must and what will happen with certainty, the second has to do with what God morally requires of mankind, and has nothing to do with whether man will actually do it. God's command is what He wants man to do on a preceptive level. God's decree determines what actually happens.

Reformed Theology teaches the concept "Semper Reformanda" (Always Reforming) which means we can always grow in our understanding of Scripture in ways that can further illumine truths already discovered and expressed in the confessions. This endnote to my essay is in no way a modified form of Reformed Theology, as some may suggest. The belief in God's eternal decree remains wholly unchanged in my theology, (that God from all eternity determines whatsoever comes to pass, including who will be saved and who will be lost - for everything falls within the purview of His providence). These only express a deeper understanding of this long held truth. Historic Calvinists may indeed have said that God does not desire all men to be saved but most were only referring to God's decretive will (which I agree with), not His revealed prescriptive will --- so I would NOT usually place them under the banner of "hypercalvinism" on this issue, unless warranted. In other words I believe Calvin and others have always themselves believed that God wants people to repent and be saved on a preceptive level even though they may not have considered or expressed the nuance we are exploring here. The point is that I am not calling those who believe that "God does not desire TO SAVE the reprobate" hypercalvinists. But rather, I am criticizing a form of hypercalvinism which takes this extraordinary truth of God's eternal decree and brings it into the realm of the prescriptive will of God. This is exemplified by those hypercalvinists have written me to say that since God does not want to save the reprobate so we must therefore never preach the gospel to the non-elect but must find those who are elect and preach only to them. No historic evangelical Calvinist, including John Calvin himself, ever believed this. Such teaching, in my view, completely misapprehends the Scripture and promotes a very unhealthy imbalance, not to mention is a source of great harm to the gospel. Thankfully the number of persons who believe such things are but few.


So again I think it is critical that we should learn differentiate between God's desire for someone to BE SAVED (prescriptive will) and God's desire TO SAVE (will of decree).

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/HyperArmin.html
 
Upvote 0

5solas

Ephesians 2:8.9
Aug 10, 2004
1,175
91
✟24,308.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
cygnusx1 said:
But rather, I am criticizing a form of hypercalvinism which takes this extraordinary truth of God's eternal decree and brings it into the realm of the prescriptive will of God.
I agree because of Rom 11 specially 11,32-36.

This is exemplified by those hypercalvinists have written me to say that since God does not want to save the reprobate so we must therefore never preach the gospel to the non-elect but must find those who are elect and preach only to them. No historic evangelical Calvinist, including John Calvin himself, ever believed this. Such teaching, in my view, completely misapprehends the Scripture and promotes a very unhealthy imbalance, not to mention is a source of great harm to the gospel. Thankfully the number of persons who believe such things are but few.
Such teaching, in my view, is absolute nonsense. How can we find out who the elect are? By preaching the Gospel (because the Holy Spirit will change their hearts when the Word of God is preached and so they will become believers...)!


So again I think it is critical that we should learn differentiate between God's desire for someone to BE SAVED (prescriptive will) and God's desire TO SAVE (will of decree).
If you want you can call it like that - we could name it "the great mystery of God" as well....

One thing we all have to learn is that we cannot explain everything (nor understand everything) because we are not God. Everything necessary for salvation though is plain and clear in the Scriptures.

Our responsibility is not to determine who the elect and who the reprobate are, our responsibility is to preach. God does His work perfectly, so why bother?
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
A serious problem.


see if you can follow the logic of this dear reader .

1. The Gospel is to be preached to all men.
2. The Gospel has content .
3. It consists of Glorious good News and a number of serious challenges :
it consists of , warnings , explanations , invitations , and a wonderful offer of life to whosoever will believe.

4. The message is one of hope for the lost sinner , and one of warning for any who would harden their hearts.
5. If the Gospel is truly preached there will be an invitation offered unto all who are present , to come , take of the water of life freely.
6. This message is heard by Elect and Reprobate.

Now concerning the 'offer' which is clearly a part of the Gospel , how is it that some say this offer is not a part of the message for the Reprobate but only for the Elect ?

At precisely which point in the Gospel message does the message cease being directed towards the reprobate and begin a message of love and forgiveness with an offer of life unto the Elect alone?

How is it that some contend that the Gospel is to be preached to all , but the content of the message is not for all ?

can anyone make sense of this contradiction?
 
Upvote 0

akolouthein

Active Member
Sep 17, 2005
181
6
46
Tennessee
✟22,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
cygnusx1 said:
A serious problem.


see if you can follow the logic of this dear reader .

1. The Gospel is to be preached to all men.
2. The Gospel has content .
3. It consists of Glorious good News and a number of serious challenges :
it consists of , warnings , explanations , invitations , and a wonderful offer of life to whosoever will believe.

4. The message is one of hope for the lost sinner , and one of warning for any who would harden their hearts.
5. If the Gospel is truly preached there will be an invitation offered unto all who are present , to come , take of the water of life freely.
6. This message is heard by Elect and Reprobate.

Now concerning the 'offer' which is clearly a part of the Gospel , how is it that some say this offer is not a part of the message for the Reprobate but only for the Elect ?

At precisely which point in the Gospel message does the message cease being directed towards the reprobate and begin a message of love and forgiveness with an offer of life unto the Elect alone?

How is it that some contend that the Gospel is to be preached to all , but the content of the message is not for all ?

can anyone make sense of this contradiction?

Ok, let me see if I can get a grasp on it. It is not only essential it is commanded by Jesus Christ to go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Which is the great commision to evangelize and teach. In the issue concerning the Gospel message being for the reprobate, thats a tough one. The reprobate have no desire to be saved. That desire has to be initiated by the Holy Spirit, which is kept from all those who are reprobate. Just for an example, a room of 50 people are gathered around and you being to preach the Gospel to them. We already know that in that crowd there is possiblity some are reprobate, heck maybe all. We also know some are elect, maybe all. As you were saying, this is a great mystery. God doesn't tell us how many are elect and how many are reprobate. I would think that the reprobate may hear the message but they aren't really listening to it, as my teachers say, because the reprobate will never do anything with the message they've heard as far as their salvation is concerned.

So is the Gospel message FOR the reprobate? I would think not in a salvic sense. Now will someone who is reprobate hear a message of Jesus proclaiming "do unto others" decided that if they try to be good to people, God might save them from that hell place that just sounds so terrible? <shrug> Maybe. I hear people say all the time "well I just don't think that person is going to hell, they seem to be a really nice person." To that I say :p , who knows and who are we to judge? If a person who is reprobate comes to me and says "I just don't believe in this Jesus guy but I live a good life. You telling me I'm going to hell?" I'd have to respond with "according to what the Holy Bible teaches us your works and kindness mean nothing to God. You must believe in Christ,receive salvation, and repent to enter the kingdom of heaven."

I don't think we can say that the message is for the reprobate or not for the reprobate in every case. Only God knows what he is up to in each proclaimation of the Gospel. In one group , God might use the Gospel to harden the heart of a person or persons. And yes I know people who have been hardend by the Gospel. So if the Gospel hardnens their heart, is this case is the Gospel for them? I'd say yes. If they Get nothing, and God works in no way within the hearts of the reprobate using a Gospel message, then I would say that God did not intend the Gospel message for that person. I'm getting kind of philosophical here because we just don't know, therefore we must proclaim the Gospel to all people and in every place.
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
cygnusx1 said:
I apologise Jon ... I mistook post # 94 ........ I thought you were saying God commanded sin (see my following post)


I will edit it , you are right.
My sincere thanks, my brother. I have also edited my post.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
5solas said:
Now this time I agree because it is what God planned to do.:thumbsup:

... but because we do not know who the reprobate are, we are going to "offer" the Gospel to everyone - that's our job as ambassadors...
:amen:

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
cygnusx1 said:
Actually , the more I think about it the more I realise that that which God commanded of Pharoah was actually that which God truly desired .

Now some will say , "ah , God had a desire to harden Pharoah and destroy him , not to simply release the Hebrews , so God commanded something different to that which He desired " but did He ?

We should ask, "What did God command of Pharaoh?"
(Ex. 4:22, 23 AV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
God's commandment to Pharaoh was in the form of a proposition: If you do not let my people go, I will slay your firstborn son. But God had already declared to Moses what was going to happen:
(Ex. 4:21 AV)And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.​
Later in the book, we find out why God desired that Pharaoh act contradictory to his commands.
(Ex. 14:4 AV) And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so. (cf. v. 18)
God says that he will be honored through Pharaoh's disobedience, for he will use it to glorify himself through the destruction of Pharaoh's host (army). This is also what Paul writes:
(Rm. 9:17 AV) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.​
What does this tell us but that God often works contrary to his commandments to mankind to fulfill his will? What can this indicate to us other than God does not always desire what he commands, and that he does not always command what he desires? Does God command our obedience to his law? Yes, indeed! They are called the ten commandments, after all. But does God desire infallible obedience to them? Not at all!
(Rm. 5:20 AV) Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:​
Paul writes that the reason the law entered was to cause sin to abound! God's purpose, his desire in administering the law to Israel was that they should fail at obeying it. His command was to be perfect unto the law, but his desire was that they should fail in their own human attempts at righteousness. Paul also tells us:
(Gal. 2:16 AV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.​
Man cannot be justified by works of the law. The purpose of the law was to render all men guilty before God.
(Rm. 3:23 AV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;​
And this is the desire of God. That all men should be sinful according to the law, for "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rm. 5:20b). Paul finishes this thought with:
(Rm. 5:21 AV) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​
We see quite clearly that God instituted the law with the commandment to all men to obey it. But that clearly was not his desire, for he desired to see his Son become the propiation for the sins of his children, that Christ Jesus might be glorified and proclaimed as God and the Son of God throughout the earth. God commanded the obedience of all men, but clearly his desire was to make his amazing grace known.

cygnusx1 said:
What I understand from this is there may be a number of things God desires when commanding , calling sinners to Repent , but it in no way undermines the genuine Desire of God that all men should repent and be saved.... else the Gospel would only be given to the Elect.

This does not follow. God's decree of election is a part of his hidden will. No man knows the elect. But God has decreed that his election should be called by the preaching of the Gospel. "Faith cometh by hearing" (Rm. 10:17). Therefore, there are two possibilities. The first is that we do not preach at all. But this would be against God's commandment (thus, sinful) and no man could be saved without hearing. The second possibility is that we preach to everyone and let God call those that are his. Now, some might say this is a false dilemma, that there remains the option of preaching only to the elect. But this is impossible because no man knows the elect. This objection is without merit. Therefore, given the two possibilities, the only one we would consider is to preach to all men. And this is precisely what the Bible commands us to do. The objection that the denial of the free offer somehow compromises the delivery of the Gospel is a baseless charge without any support.

cygnusx1 said:
I no more deny the Gospel can and does harden sinners , (the fault is all theirs ) than I would deny God desires all men believe and Repent and are saved.

Please quote me a single Scripture where it says God desires the repentance and salvation of every man individually.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
cygnusx1 said:
I like John Hendryx and his website, but this article has all of the same problems that Cygnus's arguments have had. That makes sense, of course, because he probably got many of his ideas from these kinds of arguments.

I will put out two (and a half) critical flaws with the free offer, which will probably be ignored by my opponent, but here they are nevertheless.

1) How God can desire something, but not do it? (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35, Is. 14:27, Eph. 1:11, etc.)

1b) If God has multiple contradictory desires, prove it through Scripture.

2) How can the reprobate even hear the Gospel message without regeneration? (cf. Eze. 37:3, Mt. 9:17; 16:15-17; 23:28, John 3:3, 19, 20; 6:63, 65; 8:43, 45; 10:26-28, Rm. 10:3, 1 Co. 2:14, Eph. 2:5, etc.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Practically all of post #152 I agree with , I see no fault with it.


I am not opposed in any way to God's Sovereignty , and His hidden will to bring about Judgment upon sinners by hardening them . (Romans 9)

I also concur that The Law was introduced to increase sin. And that the fall of Adam was part of God's plan.

yet , I am not convinced that any command of God should be thought of by any hearer as anything less than God's desire . For me what God commands it is no different to His desire , and I have not been persuaded that God commands insincerely or that we may second guess Him . (I didn't say anyone did say that , I just see it as a valid arguement)

I do believe that God's will is complex and does involve many desires .
My thoughts are not taken directly from any author , sometimes they are arrived at by seeing something questionable in what I perceive to be out of step with the scriptures.

It was after the event that I recognised similarities in John Hendryx work , he words it slightly different to the Puritans who I find a great help.

Here is another extract taken from John Hendryx , it contains my main premise (which incidently can be found in other Calvinist writings worded slightly different)

Is it God's Desire for All Men to Be Saved?
by John Hendryx

“…This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2: 3, 4

If God desires that all men be saved, but does not actually save all men, some might begin to question to what extent God's desires are genuine. For Him who is omnipotent, everything He desires lies within His power to achieve. This is extremely unlike you and me. I desire my friend's salvation, but I can't make it happen. There's actually very little that I can get through my own power (but this is, of course, where prayer comes in). God, however, can infallibly get everything He desires and accomplish anything He wills, according to His good pleasure. And yet, He doesn't get what He desires. What's the problem? Does His own decretive will overrule His desire? Clearly, He desires me to be more kind and gentle toward my wife. Equally clearly He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So, for someone who has the power to obtain His desires, why doesn't God apparently get what He wants? If we say that His desires are subject to (and lesser than) His decretive will, then we may wonder how genuine those desires really are.

Reasoning through the above data, the synergist concludes that the doctrine of unconditional election must be wrong, since this would mean that God has predetermined to graciously save some and leave others in their sin. Instead, if God really desires that all men be saved, the only logical explanation, in their mind, is that election is conditioned on our faith. They further reason that if God desires all mankind's salvation and He doesn't, in fact, save them, even if its within His power, then the God of the Reformers (who teach election unto faith) is schizophrenic and proven to be false. Can God genuinely desire AND act in ways that are inharmonious with His determination? Can He desire that my friend be saved and even act in such ways that he/she could be accused of "resisting the Holy Spirit" (1) and, yet at the same time, determine not to save him/her? On a surface level, this actually would appear to be a fairly reasonable argument, but when closely scrutinized, we discover it contains a fatal flaw since it actually turns out to reveal a weakness in the system of the person who raises the issue. In thinking that they have finally defeated the Reformed doctrine of election they actually end up exposing their own Achilles' heel.

Why Does This Line of Reasoning Expose the Weakness of the Questioner's System?
We must not rely purely on our autonomous reason or logic to draw important theological conclusions. Instead, we reason within the framework of the God's Self-revelation (the Scriptures), which alone should be our guide. But lets be clear that this problem of wills is not exclusively a problem for the Reformed Christian, but also for the Synergist/Arminian. Here's why. Even the Synergist would have to admit that God has a decretive will that is different from his revealed will with regard to our salvation. Remember, the Synergist holds to the view that God foreknows who will choose Him and elects them based on His prior knowledge of their choice. But here is where the problem arises in their system. No one could consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then claim that it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? He knew what their final destiny was even before He created them. With full knowledge that they would not chose Him, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, so He obviously has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. In this Arminian scheme, God had to create those that He knew would perish, even against His revealed will, yet this would make God subject to Fate. If the synergist were consistent, he would apply the same conclusion he applies to the Reformed view to his own system, but this would be a fatal blow. Unfortunately, many people are content to remain inconsistent and cling to presuppositions that have been shown to be false. So even while the staunch Arminian/Synergist has been shown to believe that, even in his own system, God has more than one will and acts against His clearly revealed statement that He desires all men to be saved, some will still obstinately remain there. This, in spite of the glaring truth that this would leave God acting against his own will, a helpless victim of Fate. Does the Bible have a solution?


How Does The Bible Resolve This Apparent Problem?
Now that this fatal error is exposed it is important that we face up to the issue at hand. If God desires all men be saved why does he not save every person? Are their two conflicting wills in God? So, lets begin by answering the question, "Does God desire that all men be saved?" The short answer is “yes", this is precisely what the text of Scripture says. But recently I have corresponded with some well-intentioned brothers, who, in the hope of protecting the doctrine of election, say that we must interpret the “all” in above passage and others like it (2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23) to be referring only to God’s chosen people. They would argue that “all men” really only means “some men” or God’s elect, as it clearly does in some other passages. But Not only do I believe this is exegetically incorrect but totally unnecessary for the following reasons:

On close inspection it should be apparent that "God's desire for all to be saved" is the same kind of desire in God as His desire that I would be more kind and gentle toward my wife or that all men would obey His commands. This aspect of His will is not often fulfilled because this is His revealed will, not his secret will of decree. And we must remember that believing that Jesus is the Son of God, is itself, a command:
"This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...”1 John 3:23

"God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." Acts 17:30

It is clear, then, that God desires all men to obey His commands whether they are reprobate or not, and this includes the command to believe. (God holds them responsible for not obeying) To say it another way, God desires that all men come to faith. To conclude otherwise would be equivalent to saying that it is God's will for man to sin (since unbelief is a sin), which would be preposterous, of course. In one sense, It would be against His character to will anyone to do anything but obey His commands. Yet in another sense, it is within His will because He allows it within the framework of His providence. If God commands all men everywhere to repent and His commandment is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then there is no other possible conclusion than to say God desires all men, elect and reprobate, to obey His commands, including the command to believe. In this way, God desires all men to be saved in the same way He desires all men to obey His commands. As I mentioned, this desire (or will) is not His "will of decree" but His "revealed will" (commanded will). The “will of decree” (or secret will) always infallibly comes to pass but His “revealed will” or His commands, although according to His desire, do not infallibly come to pass, as is obvious from the fact that we are all sinners. It is true, God came to save "His people" from their sins, and them only, but the text in 1 Tim 2: 3, 4 & 2 Peter 3:8-9 does not seem to be speaking of this concept (i.e. those the Father has given the Son). It, rather, appears to be referring to God's "revealed will" or what He commands in Scripture to all men (like Thou shalt not kill, etc.). And, from this, it is obvious that God's revealed will does not always come to fruition. In fact, each time we sin we set ourselves against what God revealed will.

So we find that God allows things to happen that He would prefer not to happen. This is referred to by theologians as His permissive (revealed) will. The Scriptures distinguish between God's secret will, embodied in his counsel of foreordination, and God's revealed will, embodied in his law. The two are often denominated God's decretive will and his preceptive will. It is by His decretive will that "He sovereignly brings to pass whatever He decrees, while His permissive will leaves room for the moral actions of His creatures." (R.C Sproul in The Invisible Hand). So we can argue that God's revealed will is an infallible guide for the life of his Church. But his secret will is not meant to be a guide at all. God's Providential hand is simply seen by us as the gradual unfolding of God's secret will. It should be clear to us then that it cannot serve as a guide for our moral behavior nor as a way to postulate who wil be saved. It might be better for the sake of understanding to differentiate these wills as God's commands and his decrees. Man is held accountable for his disobedience to God's commands (revealed will), not God's decrees. His revealed will in his law is for us and is not meant to give us a glimpse into what He plans to do with His secret will.

Deuteronomy 29:29 makes it is clear there are at least two types of wills in God. It says,

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever"

The great theologian Jonathan Edwards explained,

"Though He hates sin in itself, yet He may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though He has no inclination to a creature's misery [He desires none perish], considered absolutely, yet He may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality." ("Concerning the Divine Decrees," The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), pp. 527-28.)

Arminians consider 1 Tim 2: 3, 4 to be one of their pillar texts but they stumble here because what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do (believe). The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to obey them. God wills that we obey His commands, but nature ("flesh and blood") never taught us the absolute necessity of fleeing to a righteousness better than our own. Only God can reveal this to us. It is obvious, then, that 1 Tim 2: 3, 4 does not refer to His will of decree, but another type of will (revealed) since it does not infallibly come to pass. The commandments of God were never meant to empower us, but rather, to strip us of trusting in our own ability so that we would come to an end of ourselves. With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24).

We can also catch a glimpse of the secret and revealed wills at work in the following passage on the crucifixion of Jesus:

"...this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Acts 2:23

God, in this text, predetermines that Jesus will be crucified by the hands of godless men. Now it is clear that God does not desire or will evil, yet he here actually preordains it through godless men. God both desires (in one way) and does not desire (in another way) this redemptive historical event to happen. According to this text, God eternally decreed the crucifixion redemptive historical event, yet when it was carried out in time by sinful men, it was clearly contrary to the moral law, that is, God's commands. Using similar biblical logic, we can see that God, desires the salvation of all men. But it is equally clear that, preferring their sin, none desire to come to Him, thus rebelling against His moral law, flying in the face of His revealed will. He desires them to come but they run the other way. So His secret will mercifully goes into action (John 6:39) and, in love, He saves the persons whom He agreed upon in His eternal counsels.


Jesus, when He came into Jerusalem, saw the Israelites reject Him. He said:

" Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” Matt 23:37

Jesus truly mourns over people who are unwilling to come to Him; the reprobate. He yearns for them to come and holds out His hands to them but they are obstinate and will not come simply because they don’t want to come. He desires that these persons be saved in the sense that He wants them to believe in Him. But they love their sin more than they love their God. This is the natural condition of all men apart from God’s grace. So he desires all men to believe, but he saves only those who He sovereignly sets His affection upon, according to the good pleasure of His will. His reasons for choosing some and not others have not been revealed to us. This is part of His secret counsel or decretive will. But rest assured that God will act according to His perfections and conspire with His wisdom to do what is right. We must not assume that God does not have good reasons. He does. To think otherwise is to presume on God.

So the gospel offer is to all men ... it is universal, but, due to our natural rebellion and hatred of God, all men reject God. Therefore since men are never found naturally willing to submit in faith to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ, men will not come into the light (John 14:17; John 10:26; John 6:44; John 3:20; ROM 3:11). But Thanks be to God, who is yet merciful, coming to those He has chosen from eternity giving them eternal life. What they could not do for themselves, He mercifully does for them. Those who "have ears to hear" are the same as those whom God's favor rests. So even the desire for belief itself, like all spiritual blessings, was purchased by Christ on the cross.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/desireallsaved.html
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
When scripture speaks of God's command that all Repent , that all men seek Him and that He is willing to forgive all those who come to Him in faith and trust upon His Son , that desire is fulfilled.... for He truly doesn't change .


God's desire is not for all men to be ''saved'' simply in that term .......... for then it would of necessity be accomplished , as it would be simply speaking about that which God desires , and not that which He desires of us .

But as soon as we say , God desires something of the sinner (a command , an invitation , a warning) then the focus shifts from God's simple absolute desire of that which HE WILL DO , to a desire of that which others should do .


If my father desires that I become a lawyer and I fail , then it is me that has failed , not my father.

But if my father attempts to make me a Lawyer , perhaps attempting to pass the examinations instead of me , then if my father fails , it is not me that has failed .

or as John Murray said :

The question then is: what is implicit in, or lies back of, the full and free offer of the gospel to all without distinction? The word 'desire' has come to be used in the debate, not because it is necessarily the most accurate or felicitous word but because it serves to set forth quite sharply a certain implication of the full and free offer of the gospel to all. This implication is that in the free offer there is expressed not simply the bare preceptive will of God but the disposition of lovingkindness on the part of God pointing to the salvation to be gained through compliance with the overtures of gospel grace. In other words, the gospel is not simply an offer or invitation, but also implies that God delights that those to whom the offer comes would enjoy what is offered in all its fullness. And the word 'desire' has been used in order to express the thought epitomized in Ezekiel 33:11, which is to the effect that God has pleasure that the wicked turn from his evil way and live. It might as well have been said, 'It pleases God that the wicked repent and be saved.'

Again, the expression 'God desires,' in the formula that crystallizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the 'seeming' attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition of lovingkindness inherent in the free offer to all; in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given.

Still further, it is necessary to point out that such 'desire' on the part of God for the salvation of all must never be conceived of as desire to such an end apart from the means to that end. It is not desire of their salvation irrespective of repentance and faith. Such would be inconceivable. For it would mean, as Calvin says, 'to renounce the difference between good and evil.' If it is proper to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate, then he desires such by their repentance. And so it amounts to the same thing to say 'God desires their salvation' as to say 'He desires their repentance.' This is the same as saying that he desires them to comply with the indispensable conditions of salvation. It would be impossible to say the one without implying the other.

http://members.aol.com/rsiworship/will6.html
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The Arminian says that God absolutely Desires all men saved , but He cannot have that which He desires for men will not permit Him (Heresy)


The Hyper Calvinist says that God absolutely desires the death of the Reprobate - God does NOT desire the Reprobate to use the means and thus be saved (Heresy)



I must get some sleep
Greetings Cygnus
 
Upvote 0

5solas

Ephesians 2:8.9
Aug 10, 2004
1,175
91
✟24,308.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
cygnusx1 said:
Now concerning the 'offer' which is clearly a part of the Gospel , how is it that some say this offer is not a part of the message for the Reprobate but only for the Elect ?

At precisely which point in the Gospel message does the message cease being directed towards the reprobate and begin a message of love and forgiveness with an offer of life unto the Elect alone?

How is it that some contend that the Gospel is to be preached to all , but the content of the message is not for all ?

can anyone make sense of this contradiction?

The Gospel has to be preached to everyone regardless of whom he is.

But there is a twofold purpose and a twofold reaction:

2Co 2:12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord, 2Co 2:13 my spirit was not at rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I took leave of them and went on to Macedonia. 2Co 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 2Co 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 2Co 2:16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 2Co 2:17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Those predestined by God for eternal life will accept the Gospel and those whom He does not grant this grace will reject it. As we pointed out earlier we do not know why God chose to act like this except that He does everything according to the wise counsel of His will: Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

And again: Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

To answer your question: the content of the Gospel is both for the elect and for the reprobate alike/likewise (which is the correct English expression?); for the elect it means everlasting life, for the reprobate it means everlasting damnation. The same message but two different results.


Instead of quarreling and arguing we should praise the Lord for his wisdom.

Soli Deo Gloria!
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
5solas said:
The Gospel has to be preached to everyone regardless of whom he is.

But there is a twofold purpose and a twofold reaction:

2Co 2:12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord, 2Co 2:13 my spirit was not at rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I took leave of them and went on to Macedonia. 2Co 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 2Co 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 2Co 2:16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 2Co 2:17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Those predestined by God for eternal life will accept the Gospel and those whom He does not grant this grace will reject it. As we pointed out earlier we do not know why God chose to act like this except that He does everything according to the wise counsel of His will: Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

And again: Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

To answer your question: the content of the Gospel is both for the elect and for the reprobate alike/likewise (which is the correct English expression?); for the elect it means everlasting life, for the reprobate it means everlasting damnation. The same message but two different results.


Instead of quarreling and arguing we should praise the Lord for his wisdom.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Hi 5solas :wave:
so from that we can understand , two things , the Gospel and it's content (Look unto me , and be ye saved all the ends of the earth ) is both for the Elect and Reprobate , for they both are under the sweetest invitations known to man , and are both sincerely called ......*the outer call*......... but there is also a secret desire in God that only the Elect will come ... *the inner call* and the rest remain at a distance , they remain in their fallen state and though the Lord bids them come in all honesty and sincerity , He does not compell them to come , as He clearly does the Elect.


I call that longsuffering gracious and loving of God to invite all , I call that super abundant Love to compel the Elect.

That is the sum of it brother , thanks for your thoughts , and sorry for quarreling and arguing .(it happens)

Praise the Lord!
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Jon , I do hope we can get along better after a few ups and downs , I will reply to your post out of love and courtesy , just please avoid any remarks that may be unkind and I will do the same... that's all I can ask.Thankyou.
Greeting Cygnus
Jon_ said:
I like John Hendryx and his website, but this article has all of the same problems that Cygnus's arguments have had. That makes sense, of course, because he probably got many of his ideas from these kinds of arguments.

I will put out two (and a half) critical flaws with the free offer, which will probably be ignored by my opponent, but here they are nevertheless.

1) How God can desire something, but not do it? (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35, Is. 14:27, Eph. 1:11, etc.)
Whatever God desires that He does , true............ but whatever God desires of others is a completely separate issue , that would come under a ''conditional desire''.

1b) If God has multiple contradictory desires, prove it through Scripture.
There are no contradictions in scripture ;)
but if you are looking for paradoxes in God's will , here are a few that show God's will often involves anguish not cold indifference : Luke 19:41 ; Mat 23:37 ; Hosea 11:8 ; Deut 5:29 ; Deut 32:29 ; Ps 81:13 ; Isa 41:18


2) How can the reprobate even hear the Gospel message without regeneration? (cf. Eze. 37:3, Mt. 9:17; 16:15-17; 23:28, John 3:3, 19, 20; 6:63, 65; 8:43, 45; 10:26-28, Rm. 10:3, 1 Co. 2:14, Eph. 2:5, etc.)

well I remember the Jews heard the Gospel SO clearly ................... *drum roll * ......... that they even covered up their ears .

Acts 7:55-60 - "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 57But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse.

Romans 10 Verse 18:

[size=-1]But I ask, did they not hear? [/size][size=-1][His answer,][/size][size=-1] Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world." {Rom 10:18 NIV} [/size]




''Please quote me a single Scripture where it says God desires the repentance and salvation of every man individually.'' Jon

In truth I can no more do that , than you can quote me a single scripture that says God desires to save all the Elect ''
individually'' ..... neither are general terms like 'my sheep' , ' the Church' , 'those Sanctified' and ' the Righteous' in and of themselves taken as anything other than a general group , made up of individuals certainly. I believe one need not demand something that is self evident .

God Bless you Brother
 
Upvote 0