woobadooba said:
So then, are you trying to say that God would only have certain people obey Him, and His laws, that it isn't God's will that all should obey Him, and thus do His will?
Of course not. And, you raise yet another sense in which the "will of God" is employed in the Gospel, i.e., His
will of disposition, that is, that which is pleasing and good to the Lord.
And if God made some to be saved and others to be damned, how could it be possible that anyone could do something other than His will? You see, even if they are bad, they are still being obedient to God, because that is what He made them for--damnation. They are just simply playing the part of the damned, which God supposedly gave them. And what comes with this of course, is bad behavior/lawlessness.
So why then should God hold them accountable for their bad behavior, when it was never His will that they should do His righteous will?
Romans 9:19
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
This is, in a nutshell, exactly what you are asking, yes? If you'll excuse the analogy, it seems as if you are asking me how it is right for God to create a three legged donkey and then condemn it for hobbling as a three legged donkey naturally would. This is a very big issue so I would like to know if I have the just of your protestation before I address it.
Moreover, if one really takes a close look at your comment above, concerning the law of God, then what is really being said here is that we are saved by keeping the law, and not by God's grace.
While I acknowledge man's obligation to obey the Law of God, I do not contend that
MAN'S act of doing so serves as the basis for being justified before the judgement seat of the Most High. However, make no mistake, we most certainly
ARE saved by works. It is just that it is not
OUR works which save us. It is the work of Christ in perfectly obeying the Law of God and dying on behalf of God's elect and, in doing so, fulfilling the covenant that the Godhead had established with the first Adam, and the subsequent imputation of the merits for that perfect obedience, vicarious though it may be, that justifies us before God.
You see, when Jesus was speaking about the will of God, He was referring to the will of God in the sense of doing what God says in carrying out His purpose for humankind.
This is no different than what I have already stated. You see wooba, the Law of God serves three purposes for mankind. It serves as a model for government. It tells man what is expected of him by his Maker. And, establishes his guilt for failing to do what is commanded of him by the Lawgiver.
And doesn't God encourage all men to repent of their sins, to be saved, and thus fulfill His purpose for them?
Two things. First, God
commands that all men, everywhere, repent. It is not simply an "encouragement." Man will be held accountable for failing to repent of his wickedness. Second, if God's "purpose" for all poeple was that they be saved, what would stop that?
If so, would someone who doesn't repent be doing the will of God? Of course not.
Tell me something. In the story of Joseph, from the OT, were all the people who trespassed against Joseph doing the "will of God?" Were not their actions, even their sinful actions, ultimately in line with the providential government of the Lord? What was Joseph's reason for not being angry with his brothers who had so terribly betrayed him? Did he rail against them for their sins? Did he rail against God because all these things came to pass that, according to what you profess, were outside of His "will?" No. None of that. In fact, though we know that Joseph must have surely sinned, the Bible never actually mentions him having done so. Joseph's response to some of the most difficult sitations a saint of God has ever encountered? He simply states what he knows to be the truth:
Genesis 50:19,20
Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
Who among us is not humbled by this explicit show of faith? Who here has strength of that caliber? Joseph recognized that judging his brothers as they no doubt deserved for their wickedness was not something that God had given in to his hands. He realized that everything that had happened, the betrayal of his brothers, the false accusation of rape by his master's wife, the unjust imprisonment, his release, elevation, status, power, all of it, though freely and willfully brought to pass by those involved, was
NEVER outside the bounds of God's providence. He states plainly the doctrine of concurrence here moreso than any other verse in the entirity of Scripture. He says, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." What they meant for evil, God had purposed for good. Were their actions not "the will of God" wooba?
Tell me, Have you ever heard of the doctrine of concurrence, or as it is more commonly known, the doctrine of God's providence?
Yet, how could they repent of their sins, when it was never a part of God's plan that they should have the free-will to do so; and what sense then, would there be in God telling them to repent when they have no hope for salvation, since they were not made to be saved to begin with, but damned?
You know, this is what kills me about you free will activists. You commonly deny attributing your salvation to your will yet every discussion you have comes down to what man wills. First of wooba, man's
inability to repent stems from his inherent lack of desire to not repent. God is not imposing an unjust burden upon man. He is not creating man incapable of obedience independant of man's disobedience. Sure, some, maybe even you, will questions the righteousness of rendering upon the progeny of Adam a verdict of universal guilt before God and imposing a penalty of death for the actions of their forefather. But, in doing so, they remove from themselves the possibility of being credited with the righteousness of another and leave themselves no where to turn for redemption. Secondly, God is not obligated to grant a single person eternal life for obedience. The Bible is clear. When you have done every single thing required of you by God, you have done
NOTHING but what was expected of you. If you were to keep every law, never fail a single time, both of which are impossible for fallen man, you could not stand before God and claim to deserve a single thing. Shall we now question the holiness of God? Shall we now say to him, as you are doing, "Hey, how is it fair that you hold someone accountable for simply acting in a way that is in accordance with their nature, a nature I might remind you God, that
YOU created them with?" I'll relay to you the words of the Apostle:
Romans 9:19,20
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
Now then, what we have here is either a very confused God, or another case of bad exegesis.
Or the third possibility, that we have finally heard an explanation of the relationship between God and man that does not place man at the center of the Gospel. No wonder you dislike such an interpretation.
