No Pleasure Or Good Pleasure?

[gmm4j]

No Pleasure Or Good Pleasure?

If election were based only upon God’s unconditional choice of those He wanted to save, Scripture is clear that He would choose to save everyone.

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasurein the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then under the Calvinist construct, God would have elected all the wicked to eternal life so they would not die. Since He does not do this, election or being chosen, must be based on something more than just His unconditional good pleasure.

Scripture teaches that God has chosen according to His good pleasure to base election on the individual turning to Him in faith. Thus, He pleads for them to turn. He would receive the most pleasure, if all wicked men would voluntarily turn to Him in faith.

And, if God would rather they turn from their ways and live, and under the Calvinist construct man cannot turn himself, then it would be up to God to turn them and no pleading would be necessary.

Ezekiel 18 and 33 reveal God’s position on the death of the wicked, and His desire for all the wicked to turn and be saved. He pleads for it. This is His will. He would not plead for something contrary to His will!

Ezekiel 18 and 33 also reveal the ability of man. God would never plead with wicked men to do something they cannot do. If He tells men to turn when they cannot, He is a very cruel taunt. However, this is not the case. Instead, God has graciously given unregenerate man the ability to turn to Him, and He pleads with them to do so.

And, Ezekiel 18 and 33 reveal that God is not the direct causative effect upon a man to make him turn. God would not need to tell man to turn, if He were the direct cause of their turning. Neither would He be displeased over their death, if it were soley up to Him (monergism) to turn them or not.

 

[gmm4j]

No replies?

 

[Arcoe]

No replies?

Again, the truth speaks, and I don't have a personal vendetta against the truth. I let it speak for itself.

 

[BBAS 64]

No Pleasure Or Good Pleasure?

If election were based only upon God’s unconditional choice of those He wanted to save, Scripture is clear that He would choose to save everyone.

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasurein the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then under the Calvinist construct, God would have elected all the wicked to eternal life so they would not die. Since He does not do this, election or being chosen, must be based on something more than just His unconditional good pleasure.

Scripture teaches that God has chosen according to His good pleasure to base election on the individual turning to Him in faith. Thus, He pleads for them to turn. He would receive the most pleasure, if all wicked men would voluntarily turn to Him in faith.

And, if God would rather they turn from their ways and live, and under the Calvinist construct man cannot turn himself, then it would be up to God to turn them and no pleading would be necessary.

Ezekiel 18 and 33 reveal God’s position on the death of the wicked, and His desire for all the wicked to turn and be saved. He pleads for it. This is His will. He would not plead for something contrary to His will!

Ezekiel 18 and 33 also reveal the ability of man. God would never plead with wicked men to do something they cannot do. If He tells men to turn when they cannot, He is a very cruel taunt. However, this is not the case. Instead, God has graciously given unregenerate man the ability to turn to Him, and He pleads with them to do so.

And, Ezekiel 18 and 33 reveal that God is not the direct causative effect upon a man to make him turn. God would not need to tell man to turn, if He were the direct cause of their turning. Neither would He be displeased over their death, if it were soley up to Him (monergism) to turn them or not.

Good Day,

Read please the text...

He takes no pleasure it the death of the wicked, which begs the question that should be asked.

Why do the wicked die?

Really has nothoing to do with election tyou are focing this on the text.

for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

and of course eph 1:5

predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
It seem you have to start with Gods good pleasue, which may be different than yours or mine.

In adoption the object is chossen, not the one doing "verb" adopting.

In Him,

Bill

 

[gmm4j]

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die,

 

[gmm4j]

The pleasure is in them turning and living. Turn! Turn!

 

[BBAS 64]

The pleasure is in them turning and living. Turn! Turn!

So rather let's say , they do not Turn and God has no pleasure and exists forever unforfilled and disapointed, and empty and there is not a thing he can do.


Ummm... No thanks you can keep that.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Skala]

Gmm4j,

It is not unreasonable for God to command people to turn.

The reason they don't turn is not because of lack of grace on God's part to make it so (after all, it grace which means undeserved and unowed).

But rather, the reason they don't turn is because they are sinners.

The only reason any at all turn and live is because God's grace and mercy causes it to be so. Or else 100% of the race would perish into hell. However God, being rich in mercy, decided to save billions of people that should have perished justly into hell because they would not, by themselves, be willing to turn and live.

An analogy would be some students who get drunk and are unable to complete their homework assignment that is due the next day. Their receiving the failing grade is not due to the lack of the teacher's grace in extending the deadline, but because of their own actions.

Your argumentation is the same as shifting the blame onto the teacher for not being gracious and extending the deadline. So you are blaming the lack of grace for the reason the students are failing the grade,when instead you should recognize it is the students fault.

In theological terms, you are blaming God for withholding grace for people not repenting. But you overlook the fact that it is the person's fault themselves for not repenting, not God's lack of gracious intervention. God is not obligated to intervene and "help out". To do so is pure grace and mercy. Voluntary. Freely decided. Unowed. Grace cannot be owed or demanded or obligatory. That is the very meaning of grace.

 

[gmm4j]

Gmm4j,

It is not unreasonable for God to command people to turn.

The reason they don't turn is not because of lack of grace on God's part to make it so (after all, it grace which means undeserved and unowed).

But rather, the reason they don't turn is because they are sinners.

To tell them to turn knowing that they cannot (they do not have the ability) without your intervention, which you have decided to withhold from most, is cruel. Demanding responsibility without response ability is cruel.

 

[gmm4j]

An analogy would be some students who get drunk and are unable to complete their homework assignment that is due the next day. Their receiving the failing grade is not due to the lack of the teacher's grace in extending the deadline, but because of their own actions.

However, in your understanding, the whole class got drunk and failed and then the teacher chose to give a few of those students passing grades while letting the rest fail.

The question then arises, “if God only loves the elect, yet leaves the non-elect to himself or herself, can God be love?” Scripture responds by telling us that neither God nor love shows favoritism. Both God’s love and favor have been given to all men through Christ. God is love.

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

Romans 2:9-11
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

James 2:8-9
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

Grace can provide salvation for the whole class also, but you seem to refuse to recognize this. God has graciously provided salvation for the whole class, and yet some still refuse it.

 

[gmm4j]

So rather let's say , they do not Turn and God has no pleasure and exists forever unforfilled and disapointed, and empty and there is not a thing he can do.


Ummm... No thanks you can keep that.

In Him,

Bill

Praise the Lord some turn.

 

[gmm4j]

To tell them to turn because you take no pleasure in their perishing while knowing that they do not have the ability to turn because (according to your good pleasure?) you have chosen not to intervene on their behalf, which you have decided to withhold from most, is cruel. Demanding responsibility without response ability is cruel.

 

[nobdysfool]

And dying on the Cross for people He knows will never receive the benefit, and knowing that they will be condemned in part because they would not receive it, is not cruel?

Doing something for people and then condemning them for not receiving it, is not cruel?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Eddie L]

My son just joined the Army. As he signed up we both felt it was a good decision, but we both knew what was coming up: he'd be leaving home. We anticipated the sadness (the displeasure), but both my best buddy and I supported his decision. On the day he left we were both miserable, even though we were both pleased with the overall plan. So it was our pleasure and our displeasure at the same time. We were willing to go through the displeasure for the sake of our good pleasure.

That's not contradictory. That's just life.

 

[bottomofsandal]

My son just joined the Army. As he signed up we both felt it was a good decision, but we both knew what was coming up: he'd be leaving home. We anticipated the sadness (the displeasure), but both my best buddy and I supported his decision. On the day he left we were both miserable, even though we were both pleased with the overall plan. So it was our pleasure and our displeasure at the same time. We were willing to go through the displeasure for the sake of our good pleasure.

That's not contradictory. That's just life.

...was wondering why your mood was SAD lately

We pray God will keep your son as the apple of His eye, and hide him in the shadow of His wings

 

[Eddie L]

...was wondering why your mood was SAD lately

We pray God will keep your son as the apple of His eye, and hide him in the shadow of His wings

Thanks. The empty nest isn't as fun as it sounds. I posted the story here to show that all can go according to God's good pleasure even if there are parts of the plan that aren't pleasurable.

I do miss my buddy, though.

 

[gmm4j]

And dying on the Cross for people He knows will never receive the benefit, and knowing that they will be condemned in part because they would not receive it, is not cruel?

Doing something for people and then condemning them for not receiving it, is not cruel?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

First question: Right, it is not cruel because it was a genuine offer for them to receive. They have the ability to receive, but they reject the genuine offer and provision.

Second question: Same as first. It is not cruel. He did something for them (good news)! They reject the good news - bad for them - nothing else left.

This is cruel: Offering something to someone who you know does not have the ability to receive it, and you never intended to give it to them anyway.

 

[Eddie L]

First question: Right, it is not cruel because it was a genuine offer for them to receive. They have the ability to receive, but they reject the genuine offer and provision.

Second question: Same as first. It is not cruel. He did something for them (good news)! They reject the good news - bad for them - nothing else left.

This is cruel: Offering something to someone who you know does not have the ability to receive it, and you never intended to give it to them anyway.

It's not cruel, because it isn't insincere. To offer the gospel to those you know are unwilling to receive still means the offer was made and refused. It merely continues to demonstrate the reality of spiritual blindness and the seriousness of sin. The righteousness of Christ himself is offered. There is no logical reason to refuse! Yet a love of the darkness overcomes common sense.

The offer to these is not offered with glee. The angels are most likely mystified by it, and by it God can once again demonstrate the ugliness of anything His Spirit does not move in man.

 

[gmm4j]

It's not cruel, because it isn't insincere. To offer the gospel to those you know are unwilling to receive still means the offer was made and refused. It merely continues to demonstrate the reality of spiritual blindness and the seriousness of sin. The righteousness of Christ himself is offered. There is no logical reason to refuse! Yet a love of the darkness overcomes common sense.

The offer to these is not offered with glee. The angels are most likely mystified by it, and by it God can once again demonstrate the ugliness of anything His Spirit does not move in man.

God knows we don't have the ability without Him giving us that ability. Vice President Biden wanted Chuck to stand up to be recognized, but Chuck was wheelchair bound. If the VP knew the man's condition and made the comment on purpose (which he didn't), it would have been viewed as cruel. The offer is insincere when made knowing you are not going to enable the person to receive the offer. I've got a billion dollars for you. Meet me on the moon to pick it up. Do you think my offer is sincere?

 

[Eddie L]

God knows we don't have the ability without Him giving us that ability. Vice President Biden wanted Chuck to stand up to be recognized, but Chuck was wheelchair bound. If the VP knew the man's condition and made the comment on purpose (which he didn't), it would have been viewed as cruel. The offer is insincere when made knowing you are not going to enable the person to receive the offer. I've got a billion dollars for you. Meet me on the moon to pick it up. Do you think my offer is sincere?

Your analogy isn't accurate, because there is nothing demonstrated by someone not making it to the moon.

The offer of the gospel and its rejection serves a purpose. God is showing the powers, the principalities, and even His church a lot about Himself by the events that unfold in creation. People have eyes, ears, intelligence, life experience, and a lot of other abilities that should not stand in their way to follow a God as obvious as ours. We have centuries of history to educate us on the affects of sin and the benefit of God's wisdom. It is right in front of us. For us to turn our backs on God anyway, in spite of all He's done to show Himself to us, reveals that there is something desperately wrong with us.

That the Israelites could turn their backs on God after the parting of the Red Sea makes no logical sense. That in spite of the plagues, Passover, the exodus, the manna from heaven, and everything else the people of Israel rejected God. That defies logic, but every one of us would have done the same.

That modern man, with all his knowledge of science, with all the evidence right before his eyes, with all the facts to support what happens when nations turn their backs on God's way of life, and the very clear explanation of the gospel, there is no logical reason for a rejection of God.

Something is very, very wrong with us.

This is where you guys don't get it. The offer of the gospel is real, but man is broken. If God did only what you guys want Him to He would make the gospel appeal and we would all turn away -- every one of us, because we have declared ourselves to be God's enemies. Man does not want peace with God. He wants to go his own way.

So in order to save the world, God, in His mercy, goes even farther than a mere offer. For some of us, He actually fixes what is broken. Just as He said He would in Ezekiel 36 (after many years of telling Israel to do it for themselves), God promises that He Himself will change the hearts of His people. He takes those that are among His enemies and makes them His friend.

That you guys can twist and mangle that into something less than beautiful is beyond me. God has given us a share in the inheritance Christ earned. He has made us into a kingdom of priests and a holy nation in response to the obedience of Jesus. We were in rebellion against the Creator of the Universe, and rather than sweep us in the garbage with a wave of His hand, He has made us His children.

You guys look at that and say "That makes Him a monster"? Really?