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

[John Mullally]

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.

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.

Here is what Wikipedia says about 1 John - note the date (late) and location (not Jewish)
The First Epistle of John, often referred to as First John and written 1 John or I John, is the first of the Johannine epistles of the New Testament, and the fourth of the catholic epistles. There is no scholarly consensus as to the authorship of the Johannine works. The author of the First Epistle is termed John the Evangelist, who most scholars believe is not the same as John the Apostle. Most scholars believe the three Johannine epistles have the same author, but there is no consensus if this was also the author of the Gospel of John.

This epistle was probably written in Ephesus in AD 95–110. The author advises Christians on how to discern true teachers: by their ethics, their proclamation of Jesus in the flesh, and by their love. The original text was written in Koine Greek.

 

[John Mullally]

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.

It does not make sense that the two uses of "the whole world" shown below in 1 John mean entirely different things. What does make sense is that the phrase means "the whole world".
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It does not make sense that the two uses of "the whole world" shown below in 1 John mean entirely different things. What does make sense is that the phrase means "the whole world".
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

"world" in the Gospel of John, is said to have at least 10 different uses. Why should it mean only ever one thing in 1 John? Oh, and the fact you follow "consensus of scholars" as to whether the Gospel of John is not by the same author as the Johannine epistles is irrelevant. It is still part of the Scriptures, and therefore the several uses of "world" in the Gospel is relevant.

 

[John Mullally]

Yes the word "world" is overloaded - commonly used in John and 1 John (his style of writing), and it has many meanings.

But the phrase "the whole world" is not ambiguous - just listen to a 5 year exaggerate. He knows.

As an aside, it was interesting to take a side journey and read about the Johannine community.

 

[John Mullally]

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.

Christian growth has been an ad hoc process for me - not theology driven. Listening to different ministers speak, digest it, listen to your gut, test it against the Word, keep the good, recognize the bad, repeat. During this process, look for answers to the tough scriptures - for example, Jesus did not speak Mark 11:23-24 for no good reason. Since I was raised Catholic, which is full of error, I did not pick a theology and then decide to fight to the death to defend it. I follow my gut and test everything against scripture.

My biggest beef with Calvanists is that they deplore "Alter calls" that I judge to be scriptural. It seems like for them you have to wait on God maybe for years and then one day it hits you that you are saved. Its not the pattern in the book of Acts:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Whether the Elect are foreordained or they Elect themselves, I have lost nothing. The Bible never instructs me to do anything about that - that's His business.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Christian growth has been an ad hoc process for me - not theology driven. Listening to different ministers speak, digest it, listen to your gut, test it against the Word, keep the good, recognize the bad, repeat. During this process, look for answers to the tough scriptures - for example, Jesus did not speak Mark 11:23-24 for no good reason. Since I was raised Catholic, which is full of error, I did not pick a theology and then decide to fight to the death to defend it. I follow my gut and test everything against scripture.

My biggest beef with Calvanists is that they deplore "Alter calls" that I judge to be scriptural. It seems like for them you have to wait on God maybe for years and then one day it hits you that you are saved. Its not the pattern in the book of Acts:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Whether the Elect are foreordained or they Elect themselves, I have lost nothing. The Bible never instructs me to do anything about that - that's His business.

You appear to have run into some strange Calvinists. Your description of Calvinism is not representative of breed. You may well love the writings of John Owen, an old Reformer who speaks constantly of a life of repentance and of putting to death the works of the flesh -- "Be killing sin or it will be killing you." I personally know of no Calvinist who believes in "waiting around" on God for salvation. That seems to me to be your take on what they believe about how salvation is accomplished.

Theology, to your thinking, seems to be quite a separate thing from your daily walk, which to me is a strange notion. It is not only study, but comprehension, or apprehension of learning concerning God --this is obtained necessarily not just from what one studies and hears, but from life experienced. Even children have a theology, even Atheists have theology. I have not picked a theology to defend. I live my life, and God does what he does in it and in me. I am constantly amazed that he bothers with me, but he has not let up yet. I find in myself no strength or integrity that he should honor with any reward or response --he owes me nothing. It is indeed true that "without me, you can do nothing".

The fact that Reformed Theology rings true to me has little to do with why I believe what I do. I learned it long before I knew it was called Reformed Theology. As a matter of fact, I am critical of some points that some of its adherents posit or focus on at times. For example, they criticize some of our more Arminian brothers who claim God must wait for our permission, in order to act, (and rightly they do so), concerning Salvation, but then they themselves seem to think that God must wait for our permission concerning our own sanctification. They separate the Gospel from life subsequent to regeneration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Christian growth has been an ad hoc process for me - not theology driven. Listening to different ministers speak, digest it, listen to your gut, test it against the Word, keep the good, recognize the bad, repeat. During this process, look for answers to the tough scriptures - for example, Jesus did not speak Mark 11:23-24 for no good reason. Since I was raised Catholic, which is full of error, I did not pick a theology and then decide to fight to the death to defend it. I follow my gut and test everything against scripture.

My biggest beef with Calvanists is that they deplore "Alter calls" that I judge to be scriptural. It seems like for them you have to wait on God maybe for years and then one day it hits you that you are saved. Its not the pattern in the book of Acts:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Whether the Elect are foreordained or they Elect themselves, I have lost nothing. The Bible never instructs me to do anything about that - that's His business.

As an aside, Mark 11:23, 24 to me is not difficult at all --perhaps the most exemplary application of it is to Salvation itself. I have no doubts at all that God CAN do what I wish for, such as the bringing to himself of someone dear to me, or even concerning my own salvation. I KNOW that he not only CAN but WILL do whatever HE has set out to do. So the question is, What does he plan to do? I can fool myself concerning my own salvation. My heart affirms that I belong to him, but my heart is an idiot. It is my deeds and the fact of my rebellious "old man" that say otherwise Yet behind it all, I find huge satisfaction and joy in the bare fact that he WILL accomplish exactly what he has set out to do, and that he is doing it for his own sake --not nearly so much for mine (which realization only further affirms the fact that he WILL do it)-- and that he kindly allows me to watch him work.

What has that to do with moving mountains?, you might ask. It gives me the confidence on those rare occasions that I am convinced the mountain MUST BE moved, that it will be done, and to pray accordingly, or even in the daily facing of my "old man" still posturing as the owner of my life, that the power of God is what owns me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whether the Elect are foreordained or they Elect themselves, I have lost nothing. The Bible never instructs me to do anything about that - that's His business.

True enough it is HIS business. That's actually pretty much the point. That does NOT mean that you lose nothing by not knowing whether one is Elect or whether one elects himself. You lose a LOT by not realizing the complete and only source of grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes the word "world" is overloaded - commonly used in John and 1 John (his style of writing), and it has many meanings.

But the phrase "the whole world" is not ambiguous - just listen to a 5 year exaggerate. He knows.

As an aside, it was interesting to take a side journey and read about the Johannine community.

It seems you are not familiar with, for example, Spanish, which uses the phrase "the whole world" pretty much exactly how English uses "everyone". It can mean everyone in a group, or everyone of a kind, or everyone to whom one might be speaking, or it can even have a vague use such as in, "Well, everyone knows that he's an idiot." (just listen to a 12 year old exaggerate...). The word "all" in Spanish is less specific --if you want to say "all people" the word (phrase) they use is "the whole world".

 

[John Mullally]

You appear to have run into some strange Calvinists. Your description of Calvinism is not representative of breed. You may well love the writings of John Owen, an old Reformer who speaks constantly of a life of repentance and of putting to death the works of the flesh -- "Be killing sin or it will be killing you." I personally know of no Calvinist who believes in "waiting around" on God for salvation. That seems to me to be your take on what they believe about how salvation is accomplished.

Theology, to your thinking, seems to be quite a separate thing from your daily walk, which to me is a strange notion. It is not only study, but comprehension, or apprehension of learning concerning God --this is obtained necessarily not just from what one studies and hears, but from life experienced. Even children have a theology, even Atheists have theology. I have not picked a theology to defend. I live my life, and God does what he does in it and in me. I am constantly amazed that he bothers with me, but he has not let up yet. I find in myself no strength or integrity that he should honor with any reward or response --he owes me nothing. It is indeed true that "without me, you can do nothing".

The fact that Reformed Theology rings true to me has little to do with why I believe what I do. I learned it long before I knew it was called Reformed Theology. As a matter of fact, I am critical of some points that some of its adherents posit or focus on at times. For example, they criticize some of our more Arminian brothers who claim God must wait for our permission, in order to act, (and rightly they do so), concerning Salvation, but then they themselves seem to think that God must wait for our permission concerning our own sanctification. They separate the Gospel from life subsequent to regeneration.

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, writes: “Some of my Brethren are greatly scandalized by the general invitations which I am in the habit of giving to sinners, as sinners. Some of them go the length of asserting that there are no universal invitations in the Word of God.” (The Silver Trumpet, 3/24/1861, emphasis mine)

Spurgeon concludes: “I know the Lord has blessed my appeals to all sorts of sinners and none shall stop me in giving free invitations as long as I find them in this Book. And I do cry with Peter this morning to this vast assembly, ‘Repent and he baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus. For the promise is unto you and to your children, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.’” (The Silver Trumpet, 3/24/1861, emphasis mine)

Spurgeon states: “I further believe, although certain persons deny it, that the ‘influence of fear’ is to be exercised over the minds of men, and that it ought to operate upon the mind of the preacher himself.” (How to Win Souls for Christ, emphasis mine)

Calvinist, James White, writes: “Jesus does not seek to ‘woo’ them to a ‘freewill decision,’ nor does He strike up a lengthy invitation hymn and try to overcome their stubborn rejection of truth through an emotional appeal.” (Debating Calvinism, pp.121-122, emphasis mine)

One Calvinist explains: “I do not like altar calls because I understand them to be an emotional appeal which pressures people to do something that the Bible does not necessitate.” (Cobb: Altar Call, emphasis mine)

True enough it is HIS business. That's actually pretty much the point. That does NOT mean that you lose nothing by not knowing whether one is Elect or whether one elects himself. You lose a LOT by not realizing the complete and only source of grace.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[John Mullally]

It seems you are not familiar with, for example, Spanish, which uses the phrase "the whole world" pretty much exactly how English uses "everyone". It can mean everyone in a group, or everyone of a kind, or everyone to whom one might be speaking, or it can even have a vague use such as in, "Well, everyone knows that he's an idiot." (just listen to a 12 year old exaggerate...). The word "all" in Spanish is less specific --if you want to say "all people" the word (phrase) they use is "the whole world".

I insert the "My biggest beef with Calvanism" because that has been my experience. So good if that was just an aberration because it really bugged me.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

It seems you are not familiar with, for example, Spanish, which uses the phrase "the whole world" pretty much exactly how English uses "everyone". It can mean everyone in a group, or everyone of a kind, or everyone to whom one might be speaking, or it can even have a vague use such as in, "Well, everyone knows that he's an idiot." (just listen to a 12 year old exaggerate...). The word "all" in Spanish is less specific --if you want to say "all people" the word (phrase) they use is "the whole world".

In a short letter a good writer avoids using the same complex phrase for 2 different things.

 

[John Mullally]

As an aside, Mark 11:23, 24 to me is not difficult at all --perhaps the most exemplary application of it is to Salvation itself. I have no doubts at all that God CAN do what I wish for, such as the bringing to himself of someone dear to me, or even concerning my own salvation. I KNOW that he not only CAN but WILL do whatever HE has set out to do. So the question is, What does he plan to do? I can fool myself concerning my own salvation. My heart affirms that I belong to him, but my heart is an idiot. It is my deeds and the fact of my rebellious "old man" that say otherwise Yet behind it all, I find huge satisfaction and joy in the bare fact that he WILL accomplish exactly what he has set out to do, and that he is doing it for his own sake --not nearly so much for mine (which realization only further affirms the fact that he WILL do it)-- and that he kindly allows me to watch him work.

What has that to do with moving mountains?, you might ask. It gives me the confidence on those rare occasions that I am convinced the mountain MUST BE moved, that it will be done, and to pray accordingly, or even in the daily facing of my "old man" still posturing as the owner of my life, that the power of God is what owns me.

Mark 11:23-24 was given in answer to why the fig tree withered up after He cursed it. He is talking about using the spoken word with faith as a power tool. The faith portion requires knowing something is God's Will. This is a hard saying.

 

[rnmomof7]

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.

To the Jews the gentiles were part of the whole world.... The life of Jesus and the last supper John recounted were past .. The gospels are a look back

 

[rnmomof7]

John 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, “Perceive ye how ye prevail not at all? Behold, the world has gone after him!”

 

[John Mullally]

Thank you. We disagree. I gave more reasons to Mark. We are not assigned with the task of understanding the actual mechanics of how we are born of the Spirit.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[rnmomof7]

We are to preach the gospel and God will give ears to. whom He will

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thank you. We disagree. I gave more reasons to Mark. We are not assigned with the task of understanding the actual mechanics of how we are born of the Spirit.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

It is pretty clear that the Spirit does as he will, and that we can't order it around, then, no? God owes us nothing. The Spirit moves in according to God's plan, not ours. THIS is regeneration. The Bible talks about this work of the Spirit quite a bit.

 

[Der Alte]

It does not make sense that the two uses of "the whole world" shown below in 1 John mean entirely different things. What does make sense is that the phrase means "the whole world".
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Did the entire planet earth lie in wickedness or were there faithful Jews and Christians when John wrote his epistle? My answer is "hyperbole" as in these verses.

[1]Matthew 16:26
(26) What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? [Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25]​

Can a person literally inherit the "whole world?"

[2]1 John 5:19
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.​

Was "the whole world" literally under the control of the evil one?

[3]Revelation 12:9
(9) The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.​

Did Satan literally lead "the whole world" astray?

[4]Revelation 13:3
(3) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.​

Did "the whole world" literally follow the beast?

[5]Genesis 41:57 And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.​

Did "all the world" literally buy grain from Egypt?

[6]Acts 17:6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,​

Did the disciples literally cause trouble "all over the world?"

[7]Acts 19:35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Fellow Ephesians, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?​

Did "all the world" literally know that Ephesus was the guardian of the pagan deity Artemis?

[8]Acts 24:5 "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.​

Was Paul literally stirring up riots "all over the world?"

[9]Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.​

Did Caesar literally tax "all the world?"

[10]Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth​

Did "all the world" literally worship the goddess Diana?

[11]Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.​

Was the faith of the Romans literally spoken of throughout "the whole world?"

[12]John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.​

Did the whole world literally go after Jesus?

[13]1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.​

Did the “ends of the world” literally come upon the Israelite who disobeyed God at Sinai?

[14]James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.​

Is the tongue literally a world?
Or are the writers using hyperbole to emphasize a point?
FYI hyperbole derives from a Greek word υπερβολην/uperbole which occurs 7 times in the NT.

 

[John Mullally]

As you have shown, the term "World" when spoken by Godly men of the Bible is all inclusive or has a negative connotation (as in God of this world and world of iniquity). Crazy to substitute the "non-Jewish Elect" for "the whole world".

John 3:16 says that God gave His only Son to the "World". From your point of view that is inaccurate because He only gave His only begotten for His Own. Can you quote any popular Bible translation of John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2 just as it is to an unsaved friend?

 

[GaveMeJoy]

No that would make God responsible for our sins and that would be completely wrong. But it might be a nice excuse, I am not responsible because God made me sin, good luck using that logic.

God made humans with the ability to sin, intentionally. He is 100% responsible for creating human beings with the ability to sin. That’s not even in contention. humans didn’t decide they would have the ability to sin, the potentiality for sin existed because God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden.

So God creates people how they are, with the ability to sin, and all of them do.

It is God’s prerogative to decide who is punished for sin and who accesses grace, he doesn’t owe everyone a fair, free shot.