No Pleasure Or Good Pleasure?

[gmm4j]

@gmm4j

This is cut from another post I made a few minutes ago, and may aid your understanding of what we believe:

Let's define the Calvinist view of will: Man's will is free to do anything he desires, and which is within his capability. This means that he may desire to fly but cannot, being physically unsuited to flight, and it means that he will not do anything voluntarily which he does not desire.

We say man has the ability to turn to God, but not the will. As such, most of us tend to say not that "man cannot turn to God" but that man "will not turn to God". Where the word "cannot" is used, it is used in the following context: I am able to commit suicide yet I will not. I will therefore say I cannot commit suicide. The word "cannot" describes the ultimate reality of the situation, and "will not" describes the mechanism by which that reality is realised.

God, everywhere in the bible, entreats man to turn to him. Is he being disingenuous, knowing that man cannot? No, he is being just, because he knows man can, but will not.

So is man a puppet or robot? Nope, neither. He is someone who wilfully and universally rejects God of his own volition. Only changes wrought by the Holy Spirit can enable (not force) man to turn to God with full understanding.

Hey Crimson,

Upon a quick read, I agree with most everything you've stated. I have to run - lot of work to do... Will more thoroughly respond later.

Blessings!

 

[gmm4j]

@gmm4j

This is cut from another post I made a few minutes ago, and may aid your understanding of what we believe:

Let's define the Calvinist view of will: Man's will is free to do anything he desires, and which is within his capability. This means that he may desire to fly but cannot, being physically unsuited to flight, and it means that he will not do anything voluntarily which he does not desire.

We say man has the ability to turn to God, but not the will. As such, most of us tend to say not that "man cannot turn to God" but that man "will not turn to God". Where the word "cannot" is used, it is used in the following context: I am able to commit suicide yet I will not. I will therefore say I cannot commit suicide. The word "cannot" describes the ultimate reality of the situation, and "will not" describes the mechanism by which that reality is realised.

God, everywhere in the bible, entreats man to turn to him. Is he being disingenuous, knowing that man cannot? No, he is being just, because he knows man can, but will not.

So is man a puppet or robot? Nope, neither. He is someone who wilfully and universally rejects God of his own volition. Only changes wrought by the Holy Spirit can enable (not force) man to turn to God with full understanding.

Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil | A Theology in Tension

 

[crimsonleaf]

Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil | A Theology in Tension

I haven't tried the link, but just to be sure, are you arguing with me or Calvin? You realise that we're not the same person?

 

[Brother Chris]

God's unconditional election and predestination unto salvation IS NOT Calvinism. It is simply what the bible teaches. We're not Calvinists, we simply believe what the bible teaches. That's all!

 

[janxharris]

God's unconditional election and predestination unto salvation IS NOT Calvinism. It is simply what the bible teaches. We're not Calvinists, we simply believe what the bible teaches. That's all!

It is not what the Bible teaches.

 

[shturt678]

Romans 4

v20
Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,

v21
being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

v24
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

If you could prove that God strengthened Abraham's faith, then you would, in doing so, prove that Abraham had a faith which was of himself in the first place.

My friend janxharris, your correct on this one. The Boxer is usually correct and quite a feat to slip one in. The ol' deponent punch got um. Rom.4:20, "...he became strong with faith,...." eis is neutral and means: "looking at the promise," he did not waver. On the contrary, looking at the promise of God and seeing what v.17 states, "he become strong with faith." My point is the verb is a deponent, passive in form but not in sense.....you got this one janxharris, happy to be in your corner.

Do you really think that God would give Abraham faith to believe and then credit Abraham with righteousness for having faith which He had given him?

How is this logical?

You didn't do so well in this round, i.e., v.22, "Therefore also" this faith, this believing being what it was, "...it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." This restates v.3 and 9 and sums up the vital point of the entire discussion regarding Abraham. It was not the act as an act that was reckoned for righteousness, but Christ embraced by that act, Christ, the substance and heart of the promise to Abraham.

 

[gmm4j]

To tell them to turn because you "take no pleasure in their perishing" while knowing that they will never want 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 they turn knowing they can never will themselves to turn is cruel.

 

[Hammster]

To tell them to turn because you "take no pleasure in their perishing" while knowing that they will never want 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 they turn knowing they can never will themselves to turn is cruel.

They can will themselves. They just won't. I'm pretty sure we've said this ad infinitum.

 

[gmm4j]

To tell them to turn because you "take no pleasure in their perishing" while knowing that they will never want 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 they turn knowing they can never will themselves to turn is cruel.

They can will themselves. They just won't. I'm pretty sure we've said this ad infinitum.

What is the only thing that must happen in order for them to become willing?

That's right, according to you, the God who "takes no pleasure in their perishing" must intervene on their behalf, but instead, according to some bi-polar good pleasure, you say He withholds intervention from most leaving them in state He knows they will not turn from, all the while telling them over and over that they must turn to Him.

 

[Hammster]

What is the only thing that must happen in order for them to become willing?

That's right, according to you, the God who "takes no pleasure in their perishing" must intervene on their behalf, but instead, according to some bi-polar good pleasure, you say He withholds intervention from most leaving them in state He knows they will not turn from, all the while telling them over and over that they must turn to Him.

God isn't bi-polar.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What is the only thing that must happen in order for them to become willing?

That's right, according to you, the God who "takes no pleasure in their perishing" must intervene on their behalf, but instead, according to some bi-polar good pleasure, you say He withholds intervention from most leaving them in state He knows they will not turn from, all the while telling them over and over that they must turn to Him.

Which of course is exactly the same thing that happens in your theology. Unless of course you're an Open Theist and don't believe in a God who knows all things at all times?

Do think carefully before replying.

 

[gmm4j]

God isn't bi-polar.

We agree. So, maybe it is the system that says, God alone can make a man willingly turn toward Him, but yet He refuses to make most of humanity willing, even though He tells us that He doesn't take pleasure in anyone perishing and tells them to turn, knowing that really His good pleasure is to not enable their will to turn, that should be scrutinized.

 

[gmm4j]

Which of course is exactly the same thing that happens in your theology. Unless of course you're an Open Theist and don't believe in a God who knows all things at all times?

Do think carefully before replying.

Knowing and decreeing are vastly different. I know the type of responses you will give me, however, I don't decree them.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Knowing and decreeing are vastly different. I know the type of responses you will give me, however, I don't decree them.

Unfortunately, this is an entirely different point to the one you were addressing, and to which you gave this answer:

That's right, according to you, the God who "takes no pleasure in their perishing" must intervene on their behalf, but instead, according to some bi-polar good pleasure, you say He withholds intervention from most leaving them in state He knows they will not turn from, all the while telling them over and over that they must turn to Him.

Let's do this in baby steps: do you agree that your above statement (which has nothing to do with predeterminism or decrees) applies equally to your theology?

Once you've conceded this we can move on to predeterminism and/or God's decrees.

 

[gmm4j]

Unfortunately, this is an entirely different point to the one you were addressing, and to which you gave this answer:

That's right, according to you, the God who "takes no pleasure in their perishing" must intervene on their behalf, but instead, according to some bi-polar good pleasure, you say He withholds intervention from most leaving them in state He knows they will not turn from, all the while telling them over and over that they must turn to Him.

Let's do this in baby steps: do you agree that your above statement (which has nothing to do with predeterminism or decrees) applies equally to your theology?

Once you've conceded this we can move on to predeterminism.

No. I believe that because He "takes no pleasure in their perishing" that He: Intervenes...

#1. enables them to turn.
#2. tells them to turn.
#3. provides them ample opportunity and impetus to turn.

In my view, God intervenes, just not irresistibly. He wants love not coercion.

 

[crimsonleaf]

No. I believe that because He "takes no pleasure in their perishing" that He: Intervenes...

#1. enables them to turn.
#2. tells them to turn.
#3. provides them ample opportunity and impetus to turn.

In my view, God intervenes, just not irresistibly. He wants love not coercion.

So, you are an open theist.

You do not agree that God can see who does and who does not accept salvation prior to the real time event?

 

[gmm4j]

So, you are an open theist.

You do not agree that God can see who does and who does not accept salvation prior to the real time event?

I am not an open theist. God can foresee who does and does not accept salvation in real time.

I believe that because He "takes no pleasure in their perishing" that He: Intervenes...

#1. enables them to turn.
#2. tells them to turn.
#3. provides them ample opportunity and impetus to turn.

In my view, God intervenes, just not irresistibly. He wants love not coercion.

 

[Hammster]

We agree. So, maybe it is the system that says, God alone can make a man willingly turn toward Him, but yet He refuses to make most of humanity willing, even though He tells us that He doesn't take pleasure in anyone perishing and tells them to turn, knowing that really His good pleasure is to not enable their will to turn, that should be scrutinized.

Last I checked, God was sovereign and was under no obligation to save anyone. Just because He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked doesn't make them not wicked and deserving of punishment. And just because God is just doesn't mean He's also not merciful to some just because He wants to be.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I am not an open theist. God can foresee who does and does not accept salvation in real time.

I believe that because He "takes no pleasure in their perishing" that He: Intervenes...

#1. enables them to turn.
#2. tells them to turn.
#3. provides them ample opportunity and impetus to turn.

In my view, God intervenes, just not irresistibly. He wants love not coercion.

Taking your first sentence at face value, you believe that God knows whether an individual will ultimately reach the point of salvation prior to their creation.

Fine.

But why then do you insist that God continues to try to convince them (in real time) when He knows with 100% omniscient certainty that His efforts will ultimately be fruitless?

 

[shturt678]

What is the only thing that must happen in order for them to become willing?

I think that the one thing that is so imperative in order for them to become willing, is for us to first turn to the actual Truth, then, and only then, will they become willing. Don't hold your breath on this one.