Something higher than God wants to save everyone...

[msortwell]

[/color]Evil .......corruption......can only exist because God willed it to exist.......that we may be exercised in it and He glorified through it
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope Rom8:20

Gen 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (KJV)

God saw everything. He perceived everything. He understood everything.

He did not see most things. He did not see most attributes of all things. God saw every thing that he had made. That would include every thing about Adam.

He preceived every thing within the whole of His creation. And every thing that he created, ergo every thing that he perceived was good. Wait! I am sorry the inspired word of God says that it was all very good.

But if evil was not part of God's creation where did it come from?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

It came into the world when our first federal head chose, as a free moral agent, to do that which was not good. For evil is essentially (and perhaps exclusively) the absence of good - much like darkness is the absence of light.

msortwell

 

[moonbeam]

He preceived every thing within the whole of His creation. And every thing that he created, ergo every thing that he perceived was good. Wait! I am sorry the inspired word of God says that it was all very good.

Thats exactly right.....very good.....but not in a moral sense but in the sense of FUNCTIONALITY that the designed purpose for the creation......would be achieved.

But if evil was not part of God's creation where did it come from?

Corruption is present in the creation and must have been "part of" the CREATION and hence the purposes of God

For evil is essentially (and perhaps exclusively) the absence of good - much like darkness is the absence of light.

Agreed

 

[Eric_C]

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness" (Col 1:13)


"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Col 1:16)


Is it really that hard to miss this? Its in the same chapter..., only a few verses apart..., the same Greek word. The invisible power of darkness is created by Him, and for Him.

I've heard it said that "knowledge is power", there was a tree there in the garden of Eden called The Knowledge of Good an Evil, it was there before man sinned when everything was good. Guess what? God created it.

 

[msortwell]

Thats exactly right.....very good.....but not in a moral sense but in the sense of FUNCTIONALITY that the designed purpose for the creation......would be achieved.


Corruption is present in the creation and must have been "part of" the CREATION and hence the purposes of God
Agreed

And these assertions are based upon what exactly? At issue in the debate is whether or not there was an inclination toward sin within Adam that was part of who he was when he was created. Your responses seem to presume the answer to be 'Yes' absent any basis for that conclusion.

There must be some text to encourage the reader of Scripture to reject the plain message of Gen 1:31.


Why do you believe that corruption was present in the creation, as it was originally created? What Scripture do you see as teaching more clearly the truth of the condition of the world (including Adam) at the time of creation?

Please, if you know of such a text, direct us to it, or to one that requires that we necessarily conclude that there must have been corruption within that which God create and declared to be very good.

Your assertion regarding functionality is only valid if something outside of the text of Gen 1:31 forces a secondary interpretation of a seemingly simple text. For your position to have any merit there must be a text that clearly indicates that when God said "very good," He obviously meant something other than a the plain literal sense. Bring that clearer text to bear upon your argument.

If your response references no such text then your position is without merit - simply a fantasy built to undergird a doctrine that you are not willing to relinquish.

Blessings,

msortwell

 

[G4m]

Some Calvinists believe point blank that God only loves the Elect , and He only desires their salvation , everyone else God hates and He desires their destruction...... a very tough , hard , view to hold , especially if you worship a God of Love and if you Evangelise.

Then there are more moderate Calvinists who are in line with both the creeds and the Writings of *John Calvin who say God has a varied will . * see post below*

then there is the Arminian who says He believes God wants everyone saved , but cannot obtain that which He desires.

Usually the battle ground is over 2 Peter 3:9 , 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16 etc .

But has anyone noticed that God works within a framework of priorites?

Even the Arminian when pushed will have to admit that God's desire to save everyone is NOT an Absolute desire , but it has a refence point to God's higher desire " to uphold man's Free-will "

I also believe God does have a higher desire than just willing / wishing everyone is saved and that is His desire to Glorify Himself using vessels of Mercy and also vessels of wrath fitted to destruction .

So when someone points out scriptures that speak of God's Love , Longsuffering and Patience , and His desire for all to be saved , just remember they don't hold it as an unconditional , isolated desire.

Thanks for your comments BWV 1080 (is that like a video game title )

I think that some of the Arminian arguements are Biblical , but I am 99% in favour of the Calvinist understanding , because it leaves God as both the Author and Finisher of our Faith , and God gets all the Glory .

when it comes to the reprobate , I don't mind borrowing (and modifying ) a few Arminian tenets !!

Cheeky , I know , but I think it is Biblical and fair .

As C H Spurgeon said , if we get to Heaven all the thanks and Praise belong to God.
But if we go to Hell all the fault is ours entirely .

cygnusx1,

Interesting discussion!

However, I don't see how the two statements I bolded work together. Hell would also be there to glorify God.

Also is this statement accurate?

Some Calvinists believe point blank that God only loves the Elect , and He only desires their salvation , everyone else God hates and He desires their destruction

If it is, why wouldn't God just destroy those that aren't elect? Unless its for His glory???

 

[Colossians]

There must be some text to encourage the reader of Scripture to reject the plain message of Gen 1:31.
If it was so plain, then why did you not see that the "good" referred to things like trees and animals as well as man. Are trees righteous?
The "good" means "good for God's purpose".

Tell us also why it is that God declared certain animals an abomination to the Jews, if He thought they were an unqalified good.
While you're at it, also tell us what was so "good" about a dirty big demon-possessed snake in the middle of the garden?


Why do you believe that corruption was present in the creation, as it was originally created?
Second law of thermodynamics, without which all of physical occurences would not occur with predictability.
Consider also that a wheat seed will not grow unless it dies. Consider also that the white part of your finger nails is dead cells. Death was an integral part of the creation.
The human body is designed to replenish dead cells. This design was operational from the beginning. Even hair growth speaks to this process.
Every time Adam picked a blade of grass, it died.

 

[Philip dT]

As C H Spurgeon said , if we get to Heaven all the thanks and Praise belong to God.
But if we go to Hell all the fault is ours entirely .

And this is exactly the weakness of Reformed Theology. How can this be rhymed with God's eternal decision to pre-elect certain people onto damnation? How can going to hell still be man's fault ENTIRELY?

 

[Colossians]

As C H Spurgeon said , if we get to Heaven all the thanks and Praise belong to God.
But if we go to Hell all the fault is ours entirely .
How can this be rhymed with God's eternal decision to pre-elect certain people onto damnation? How can going to hell still be man's fault ENTIRELY?
Yet another paraphrase of Rom 9:19's, "why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?"
Why don't you have a look at Rom 9:20,21 and you will find your answer. It was written for such as you.


You also don't understand Spurgeon: you must think he was a numb-skull.
He said going to hell was man's fault, not that man caused it.
The cause of such fault is clearly laid out in Rom 9:17,18,20,21.
God ascribes fault unto vessels which He purposely made faulty.
Otherwise we wouldn't have anything to compare ourselves to, and no-one to persecute us in order to refine us.

 

[Philip dT]

He said going to hell was man's fault, not that man caused it.

This is an artificial distinction to suit your theology. Sorry, doesn't make sense.

 

[Philip dT]

On Rom 9:19:

The question that is asked in Rom 9:19 is a question that Paul anticipates: "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" To paraphrase the question that Paul anticipates: Why does God find fault with the Jews after God has hardened their heats in order to bring salvation to the non-Jews also (verse 30) for no one could succeed in stopping God from performing his will / purpose anyway? Paul argues that this is actually a silly question, for God did not in fact blame them, for He ought to show His wrath and make His power known, but He did not, He endured with much long-suffering those who were to blame and who deserved hell in the first place (verse 22). By this, God actually did not bring blame, but made known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory (verse 23). This is a paraphrase for the gospel where His grace is shown. And to whom did God's grace came? People from all the nations – Jews included (verse 24). In the New Testament, people attain the righteousness which is by faith (verse 30).


The following then from Rom 9:19:



1) The question that Paul addresses is not a question that He has, but a question that he anticipates from his audience.

2) Paul shows that this question is actually inappropriate and that the opposite is true.

3) Paul does therefore not try to retain the idea that God still blames people after He has pre-elected them.

4) The blame on the Israelites was there before he chose to harden their hearts to the gospel. The hardening of their hearts was therefore not a change in their destination, but God used them, even though they were already going to hell, in his plan to bring salvation to all nations.

5) The hardening of hearts does not equal eternal damnation, but serves a higher purpose: namely to bring salvation to all nations.

 

[tigersnare]

Why do you believe that corruption was present in the creation, as it was originally created?
Second law of thermodynamics, without which all of physical occurences would not occur with predictability.

What does entropy have to do with corruption?

 

[msortwell]

Why do you believe that corruption was present in the creation, as it was originally created?
Second law of thermodynamics, without which all of physical occurences would not occur with predictability.
Consider also that a wheat seed will not grow unless it dies. Consider also that the white part of your finger nails is dead cells. Death was an integral part of the creation.
The human body is designed to replenish dead cells. This design was operational from the beginning. Even hair growth speaks to this process.
Every time Adam picked a blade of grass, it died.

But you use as evidence the conditions present in the world today. I understand (if I recall correctly) that you reject the notion that there was ever a "fall" of man which brought sin and death into the world. However, now it seems that you are using the evidence of death/corruption in the present world to substantiate that there was corruption in the world as it was originally created. This necessitates that we accept you doctrine of "no fall" to justify your conclusion that the world, with respect to the presense of corruption, has remained the same. This seems to be circular reasoning.

msortwell

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1,

Interesting discussion!

However, I don't see how the two statements I bolded work together. Hell would also be there to glorify God.

Also is this statement accurate?

If it is, why wouldn't God just destroy those that aren't elect? Unless its for His glory???

I think the confusion arises because we take a scripture like Romans 9 , which does teach God's Total Sovereignty over every vessel and Romans 11 which definately teaches in no uncertain terms that God is able to graft back in the Jews IF they don't continue in unbelief!
Romans 9 should always be read with Romans 11 in mind.
Take a really slow read of Romans 11 , it is perhaps the most defined "human responsibility" passage in the whole Bible.

Also problems arise when Reprobation is incorrectly understood , it has at least several parts.

God did not make anyone merely in order to damn them!

 

[G4m]

I think the confusion arises because we take a scripture like Romans 9 , which does teach God's Total Sovereignty over every vessel and Romans 11 which definately teaches in no uncertain terms that God is able to graft back in the Jews IF they don't continue in unbelief!
Romans 9 should always be read with Romans 11 in mind.
Take a really slow read of Romans 11 , it is perhaps the most defined "human responsibility" passage in the whole Bible.

Also problems arise when Reprobation is incorrectly understood , it has at least several parts.

God did not make anyone merely in order to damn them!

Coming back to this statement:

I also believe God does have a higher desire than just willing / wishing everyone is saved and that is His desire to Glorify Himself using vessels of Mercy and also vessels of wrath fitted to destruction .

So God is glorifying Himself through the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?

The reason for unbelief?

Romans 11
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

[cygnusx1]

Coming back to this statement:

So God is glorifying Himself through the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?

The reason for unbelief?

Romans 11
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Yes .......... ALL , context determines that abstract word ......... ALL the ones He has Mercy upon!

Otherwise you end up with Universalism , which isn't Christian.

 

[G4m]

Is that a 'Yes' to this question?

So God is glorifying Himself through the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?

Yes .......... ALL , context determines that abstract word ......... ALL the ones He has Mercy upon!

Otherwise you end up with Universalism , which isn't Christian.

If we proceed on that basis, then what about all those that don't receive mercy? Are they concluded in unbelief or not?

 

[john14_20]

Yes .......... ALL , context determines that abstract word ......... ALL the ones He has Mercy upon!

Otherwise you end up with Universalism , which isn't Christian.

So, beginning with the assumption that universalism is not true, the word 'all' in this verse cannot mean all.

But what if 'all' actually means 'all'?

Maybe universalism is Christian after all?

Would it really be that bad?

Blessings, Pete

 

[john14_20]

Romans 11
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Hi G4

Yes .......... ALL , context determines that abstract word ......... ALL the ones He has Mercy upon!

So cygnusx1, what you really want Romans 11:32 to say is something like this:

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all the ones He has mercy on.

Quite redundant really.

 

[G4m]

Hi G4

 

[Colossians]

He said going to hell was man's fault, not that man caused it.
that's an artificial distinction to suit your theology.
On the contrary, it's a very real distinction clearly laid out in Rom 9:17,18,19-21.
That you think it is not a distinction is simply a product of your faulty premise that fault and cause must originate in the same being. Rom 9 clearly in the most emphatic terms tells us that fault in man is caused by God.