My simple proof that God's Will is not always performed

[chad kincham]

That is what happened when God hardened Pharaoh's heart on the Hebrews way to promised land.

You should go to YouTube and search for ‘Adrian Rogers predestination’ the video answers the question about the hardening of Pharohs heart, and answers Calvinistic interpretation of Romans ch. 9.

That is what happened when God hardened Pharaoh's heart on the Hebrews way to promised land.

 

[chad kincham]

Your post which I quoted implies UR.

"John 1:2-2 says that Christ atonement was for all. If His atonement was for all, then it would be absurd to believe that He is unwilling for some to not come and receive it. Therefore, "God is not willing for you to perish, but for you to come to repentance" includes all.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

 

[rnmomof7]

Your post which I quoted implies UR.

"John 1:2-2 says that Christ atonement was for all. If His atonement was for all, then it would be absurd to believe that He is unwilling for some to not come and receive it. Therefore, "God is not willing for you to perish, but for you to come to repentance" includes all.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

This was being written to the Jews, that believed they had an "exclusive" God and messiah ...John is letting the readers know that Christ also was the sacrifice for the gentiles..(which the Jews considered the rest of the world)..

 

[Der Alte]

This was being written to the Jews, that believed they had an "exclusive" God and messiah ...John is letting the readers know that Christ also was the sacrifice for the gentiles..(which the Jews considered the rest of the world)..

That is what I believe. Guess I've been discussing with too many UR-ites. "For all" does not mean all will accept.

 

[chad kincham]

Your post which I quoted implies UR.

"John 1:2-2 says that Christ atonement was for all. If His atonement was for all, then it would be absurd to believe that He is unwilling for some to not come and receive it. Therefore, "God is not willing for you to perish, but for you to come to repentance" includes all.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

All scripture must be considered on any topic.

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not perish... but keep on reading - whoever rejects Gods son is condemned.

It’s obviously a choice we are given. The offer is to WHOSOEVER WILL, we have freewill to choose to reject Jesus, as His own elect nation of Israel did, John 1:11, or choose to receive Jesus and become a child of God John 1:12.

Jesus’ sacrifice for sins is offered to the whole world, but scripture makes it clear that His Atonement is not applied to anyone apart from those who believe and repent of their sins. Acts 3:19 (repentance is part of conversion and forgiveness of our sins).

 

[rnmomof7]

So Who is "WHOSOEVER"? The issue is who will come and why... Christ died for a specific group.. even as He hung on the cross He knew who "whosoever" is and when they will believe...because He brings them to faith

Do you know what the Jews meant when they spoke of "the world"

 

[Glorytothefather2245]

.

 

[John Mullally]

Gods will won’t be done on earth as it is in heaven until Jesus’ second coming establishes His kingdom on the earth.
Satan is god of this world for now, because Adam was given total dominion over it, and transferred that dominion to Satan. 2 Corinthians 4:4 Luke 4:5-7
When Adams 6,000 year lease on the world runs out, satans sub lease also ends, Jesus returns with the title deed to the earth in His hand, and establishes Gods kingdom, and rules with a rod of iron.
Then Gods will WILL be done on earth.

I could not say it any better.

 

[John Mullally]

So Who is "WHOSOEVER"? The issue is who will come and why... Christ died for a specific group.. even as He hung on the cross He knew who "whosoever" is and when they will believe...because He brings them to faith

Do you know what the Jews meant when they spoke of "the world"

I don't know how a Calvanists, like yourself, can in good conscience quote John 3:16 because you can't tell the potential non-elect "that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" because it would be bad to give out false hope.

If you can't quote John 3:16 and similar verses, it seems like evangelism would be nearly impossible. You have got some serious issues when you cannot quote Jesus in good conscience.

 

[John Mullally]

This was being written to the Jews, that believed they had an "exclusive" God and messiah ...John is letting the readers know that Christ also was the sacrifice for the gentiles..(which the Jews considered the rest of the world)..

You redefined "the Whole World" into the Gentiles - and then other inferences can be made to make it something other than the plain reading. I am sure a lot of thought was made to postulate this one.

But what you said doesn't work because 1 John was written between 85 & 95 AD. And the Jew/Gentile division in the Church was settled long ago because Hebrews was written in 63 or 64 AD. The concept of the Gentile believers belonging would be an old issue.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think when God says that it hadn't entered His mind/heart He meant just that. If it hadn't entered His mind then it wasn't His plan.
To blame God for man's sins because it's His plan and they can't resist doing the evil that God planned is a shameful theological teaching, imo.

To say that God is to be blamed for anything is not the same as to say that he causes all things. God is not like us, and does not operate on our level.

I suppose it would be worth my time to read some Hebrew experts on a more literal translation, or on some of the nuances of the text there, since this has come up before and no doubt will again, but can't do it today. I do know that often when people say, "it means what it says", they think it means what THEY think it says. I'm sorry for the facile answer that it could mean that it would never enter his mind to command such a thing.

I agree with Einstein who in his usual logical fashion said, "God does not play dice with the universe", and I can also sympathize with Hawking who is said to have retorted, "Who are you to tell God what he can do?" In appearance to most humans, naturalism answers all questions, except the very early ones, and the promises of the modern scientific community want to suggest that mere chance determines outcomes, but that is simply logical nonsense --the fact that we don't know the causes does not mean that anything happens by chance. In fact, if virtual particles approach the most basic building blocks of matter and energy yet can no be found to have causes for their [apparent] "popping in and out of existence" it might suggest that God is actively and directly causing them to do so, and not "chance" after all. I say all that to point out that when we consider what God does or does not, by the logic of the law of causality, we really don't know enough to blame God for the tragedies and sin of this life, yet we can certainly ascribe to him fairness and justice. That does not imply then that he has no control, or never planned for them to happen nor that they even could happen if he had not planned for them to do so.

 

[Der Alte]

To say that God is to be blamed for anything is not the same as to say that he causes all things. God is not like us, and does not operate on our level.
I suppose it would be worth my time to read some Hebrew experts on a more literal translation, or on some of the nuances of the text there, since this has come up before and no doubt will again, but can't do it today. I do know that often when people say, "it means what it says", they think it means what THEY think it says. I'm sorry for the facile answer that it could mean that it would never enter his mind to command such a thing.
I agree with Einstein who in his usual logical fashion said, "God does not play dice with the universe", and I can also sympathize with Hawking who is said to have retorted, "Who are you to tell God what he can do?" In appearance to most humans, naturalism answers all questions, except the very early ones, and the promises of the modern scientific community want to suggest that mere chance determines outcomes, but that is simply logical nonsense --the fact that we don't know the causes does not mean that anything happens by chance. In fact, if virtual particles approach the most basic building blocks of matter and energy yet can no be found to have causes for their [apparent] "popping in and out of existence" it might suggest that God is actively and directly causing them to do so, and not "chance" after all. I say all that to point out that when we consider what God does or does not, by the logic of the law of causality, we really don't know enough to blame God for the tragedies and sin of this life, yet we can certainly ascribe to him fairness and justice. That does not imply then that he has no control, or never planned for them to happen nor that they even could happen if he had not planned for them to do so.

May I suggest the 1917 Jewish publication Society translation which can be viewed or D/L at these links. Who better than native Hebrew speaking scholars know the correct meaning of Hebrew words without any Christian denominational bias?

https://3nh8l199u17.blob.core.windows.net/3nh8l199u17/QjAwNTJaODhSVQ==.pdf
Download The Holy Scriptures, Tanakh 1917 edition | The Jewish Publication Society

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simply God does not have to control every little thing in order to be sovereign. That God allows man to make freewill decisions reflects His love for man and is not a loss of control of any kind.

Then let me put it another way: If the law of causality prevails, and "chance" determines nothing, what God did originally, in setting to work the chain of cause and effect, determines every minutest detail. According to some of the more poetic physicists, "The seeds of the universe as we know it were sown with the Big Bang" (or words to that effect), by which they mean to say that every single detail of what happened and is happening now, were caused by the particular mode of the beginning. They fact that they might think it was all accidental does not invalidate the fact that everything is indeed caused, except for First Cause (God).

 

[Mark Quayle]

You say that we see through a glass darkly - Big Amen. That's why I don't try very hard to figure out how God does His business and stick to what God is directing.

Yet both the Word of God, and Logic, prevail, no? There is no need to make up or abide by commonly (loosely) held conceptions such as the rule of chance, if they are illogical, since the Bible doesn't abide by them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

May I suggest the 1917 Jewish publication Society translation which can be viewed or D/L at these links. Who better than native Hebrew speaking scholars know the correct meaning of Hebrew words without any Christian denominational bias?

https://3nh8l199u17.blob.core.windows.net/3nh8l199u17/QjAwNTJaODhSVQ==.pdf
Download The Holy Scriptures, Tanakh 1917 edition | The Jewish Publication Society

Thank you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Furthermore, to blame God for man's sins, sickness, and poverty is not scriptural according to the scriptural proof I provided in my opening post.

It is man's self-justifying mind that attempts to put the blame on God, when he causes a thing. God clearly puts the blame of wrongdoing on man, no matter the causes. God is never to blame. To say that God causes all things is by no means the same as saying he is to blame.

Again, he doesn't operate on our level.

If, as so many seem to want to do, you wish to distance God from causation, it seems you should then wonder just how omnipotent is he, after all. If he is omniscient, as some atheists like to say (and they are correct in this logic), he certainly knew every detail of every hard to accept tragedy and sin when he went ahead and made us anyway. And being First Cause, it is logically inescapable that he caused every subsequent effect.

 

[John Mullally]

I can drive a car without having to knowing the intricacies of how its computer works.

 

[Mark Quayle]

John 1:2-2 says that Christ atonement was for all. If His atonement was for all, then it would be absurd to believe that He is unwilling for some to not come and receive it. Therefore, "God is not willing for you to perish, but for you to come to repentance" includes all.

1 John 2:2 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When Christ died, he WISHED he did not have to. When God "wants" something it may very well be the same sort of thing, but there is only one way for him to complete the finished product he had in mind when he created mankind.

Meanwhile, the language of 1 John 2:2 there is pretty plain, in the context of the rest of Scripture, and specially in the the heart of the rest of John's writings, that he is referring to the fact that Christ did not only die for Jews, but for his chosen of the Gentiles also. Phil Johnson writes, "There is little doubt that this is how John's initial audience would have understood this expression. "The whole world" means "people of all kinds, including Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, Romans, and whatnot" as opposed to "ours only" i.e., the Jewish nation. What the apostle John is saying in the John 11 passage [he is referring here to John 11:51,52 --a passage similar to 1 John 2:2 (MQ)] is particularly significant: Christ died so that he might gather "the children of God" the elect, from the whole world." See the phrase, "out of" or "from", in a similar use in Rev 5:9,10

The language of the verse alone, and in considering the immediate context, may also may be taken to mean that if any are to be saved, it is through Christ --none are saved any other way. I do not find the context to support the notion that God intended for everyone to be saved, nor that in fact the sins of any but those God chose for his mercy were paid for in the sacrifice of Christ.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the payment by Christ was not hypothetical, nor was it done in vain for any. That the gospel is offered to many who are subsequently lost does not invalidate the offer if the sins were never actually paid for, since to pay for their sins is to redeem them. If they had become as the chosen redeemed, they would have BEEN the chosen redeemed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are striving to understand the mechanics of how God is in Control in this fallen world. I think that you. like Job, have put yourself in a fight that God has not called you to.

The "fight" as you call it, in the end involves the very nature of the Gospel of Christ. You, I think, while you might decry the notion, want to involve the will and work of man in cooperation with the work of Christ and the Spirit of God as necessary in regeneration. I, and Reformed Theology teach that only the work of God is capable of salvation, and that the will of man is necessarily transformed as a result. THIS is important. To God be all the credit and glory.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can drive a car without having to knowing the intricacies of how its computer works.

I do not deny that those who think they became saved upon their mental/emotional/willed/etc "acceptance" of Christ, and as a result of this "acceptance", can (and, I think, perhaps even usually ARE) be saved. Many of my immediate and distant relatives are of that ilk.