Weep Over Jerusalem?

[guuila]

I do not accept that it true of my theology.

Every single person that is born has an equal chance to come to Christ.

And if God looks into the future and sees they won't believe, and then creates them anyway, you think they still have a "chance" at heaven?

 

[janxharris]

No. It really depends on how important you think grammar is, and whether or not you're willing to ignore grammar to uphold your free will traditions. You basically read verses like this as "It can't mean what it seems to say, because free will."

Did Job have a sufficient quota of free will to be tested? Truly tested...

Yes or no?

 

[guuila]

Did Job have a sufficient quota of free will to be tested? Truly tested...

Yes or no?

I don't understand the question.

 

[janxharris]

And if God looks into the future and sees they won't believe, and then creates them anyway, you think they still have a "chance" at heaven?

In their life, they have every chance. One could not indict God with the accusation of injustice if such a chance was real. Under your theology the outcome is inexorable.

There would be consequences if God had only created humans that would, at some point in their life, believe on him. Free will is one of God's supreme achievements I would say. Without it, nothing is truly real and nobody is truly 'tested'.

 

[Hammster]

In their life, they have every chance. One could not indict God with the accusation of injustice if such a chance was real. Under your theology the outcome is inexorable.

There would be consequences if God had only created humans that would, at some point in their life, believe on him. Free will is one of God's supreme achievements I would say. Without it, nothing is truly real and nobody is truly 'tested'.

And once again, how is God unjust if He doesn't save everyone?

 

[guuila]

In their life, they have every chance.

So you are an Open Theist then? You're advocating the position that election happens in time instead of before the foundation of the world.

 

[janxharris]

I don't understand the question.

Satan was allowed to have power over Job since he (Satan) had scoffed that Job only feared God because of what God had given him (Job). The test was to see if Job continued to fear and trust God whilst he suffered physically and materially. Job remained faithful to God throughout.

Only free will permits such a test as this.

 

[guuila]

Re: 2 Chronilces 30.

How one reads it all depends on where one puts one's emphasis. It says that some humbled themselves, but also, as you rightly stress, 'The hand of God was on Judah to give them unity of mind...'.

If free will is not existent then what is the point of life?

So again, why did some obey the command? Let me remind you:

However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD. (2 Chronicles 30:11-12 ESV)

Does this teach that God gave them a heart to do what was commanded? Yes or no?

 

[guuila]

Satan was allowed to have power over Job since he (Satan) had scoffed that Job only feared God because of what God had given him (Job). The test was to see if Job continued to fear and trust God whilst he suffered physically and materially. Job remained faithful to God throughout.

Only free will permits such a test as this.

We have free will. The way I would articulate it is that we can choose whatever we want. But that statement itself contains a qualifier that is an inherent limitation, namely, "whatever we want." We are free to follow the desires of our heart. If we want Christ, we're free to choose Christ. If we hate Christ and want to pursue ungodliness, we're free to choose that path as well.

What we're not free to do is determine our own desires. Our desires are determined by our nature. We can't make ourselves love something we naturally hate. The Bible is clear that by nature we are hostile toward God and love sin. If a person hates God and loves sin, they don't have the ability to love God. Why would they? They're perfectly content not loving God. They would never desire to desire anything else because they're slaves to sin. They love sin. Unregenerate man takes to sin like a duck takes to water. The Bible says over and over that the human heart is the ultimate problem, not the will of man. The will is subservient to the heart. The heart must be changed. The only way the sinful, dead, stony heart of man in its natural configuration can all of a sudden have holy desires and love God is if God first replaces that heart with a heart of flesh. In our natural state we are like pigs who love eating garbage. A pig will always love eating the trash pigs love to eat as long as it is a pig. A pig's nature must be changed before it will hate eating what it once loved. Obviously this is an analogy and it breaks down, but I hope you get the point I'm making. The heart must be changed, and that only happens by sovereign regenerating grace whereby a person is spiritually awakened to love the things God loves and hate the things God hates.

So yes, we have free will to do whatever we desire. It's our desires that are the limitation because by nature they come from a dead, stony, calloused heart that hates God. And yes, while there are many unregenerate people who would never say they hate God, the fact that they remain in rebellion to him not bowing the knee to Christ in repentance and faith means they are hostile toward him, even if they don't acknowledge it.

 

[janxharris]

And once again, how is God unjust if He doesn't save everyone?

I did not say God is unjust if He does not save everyone.

 

[guuila]

I did not say God is unjust if He does not save everyone.

Yes you have. You have said multiple times God is unjust if he doesn't at least try to save every single human being, while simultaneously contradicting yourself saying every person deserves damnation.

 

[Hammster]

Satan was allowed to have power over Job since he (Satan) had scoffed that Job only feared God because of what God had given him (Job). The test was to see if Job continued to fear and trust God whilst he suffered physically and materially. Job remained faithful to God throughout.

Only free will permits such a test as this.

I agree.

 

[Hammster]

I did not say God is unjust if He does not save everyone.

Okay, how is He unjust if He doesn't try to save everyone and give everyone the same opportunities to come to know Him?

 

[janxharris]

So again, why did some obey the command? Let me remind you:

However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD. (2 Chronicles 30:11-12 ESV)

Does this teach that God gave them a heart to do what was commanded? Yes or no?

I do accept that God influence men and verse 12 is an example, though not necessarily in verse 11.

 

[guuila]

I do accept that God influence men and verse 12 is an example, though not necessarily in verse 11.

It doesn't say he influenced them. It says he gave them a heart to do it. That means if we obey, it's because God gave us a heart to obey. You're playing games with semantics to defend your traditions.

 

[cygnusx1]

You're right, but when you teach the only thing that can save is how Jesus feels about people. and He says His desire is to save them, and He doesn't save them, Jesus becomes insane.


Calvinism is pure fatalism. Calvinism teaches God created the vast majority of people for the purpose of destroying them. I'm going to have a child to kill it. This is insane. This is not the God and Jesus described in the Bible.

Your part right , but it isn't Calvinism you describe .

You also believe His desire is to save them but He doesn't save them ..... The difference is another issue , but it does nothing to help your premise.

 

[cygnusx1]

So God's desires are feelings. And I thought Calvinists did not like feelings or emotions when it came to one's decisions.

Why would God have this feeling to gather them now, when in time past He has already determined He wouldn't gather them?



Tell us how, even though Jesus desired to gather them, the leaders prevented this desire of Jesus. You sure give man a lot of credit for thwarting Jesus' feelings.

The desire of God is perpetual , it isn't a one off , He says "how often " , etc meaning this desire was over many many years .
You say the leaders prevented this desire ? If that was the case it wouldn't record Christ saying He desired , but it does and He did , thus they did not prevent His desire .

 

[janxharris]

Okay, how is He unjust if He doesn't try to save everyone and give everyone the same opportunities to come to know Him?

It would be the apotheosis of incongruity for God to gracefully send His Son to die on the cross to propitiate for sin if He only made that act available for some.
I cannot understand how you can even ask the question.

What is going on Hammster????

 

[janxharris]

I agree.

How can RF agree? Please explain.

 

[janxharris]

Yes you have. You have said multiple times God is unjust if he doesn't at least try to save every single human being, while simultaneously contradicting yourself saying every person deserves damnation.

God would never only try to save some. He has made salvation available for all.

John 10:9
I am the gate; anyone who enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out and find pasture.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 1:9
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

You don't make a supreme sacrifice on a cross only to caveat it with, '...actually, I only did it for some'. Such would be incongruous: on the one hand the ultimate act of sacrifice and grace and on the other, partiality of the grossest kind.