Weep Over Jerusalem?

[cygnusx1]

Bottom line.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God

It is right or it is wrong.

No oh yes it is right the long winded weasal word saying no it is wrong.

It is right or it is wrong. Period.

You have to be clearer than that !

Start by quoting where I contradict myself .... You will not because you cannot.

 

[JackSparrow]

God is NOT willing that any should perish - Thus sayeth the Lord.

1 Samuel 2:25


New International Version (©1984)

If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death

So c1x

Now you pit scripture against scripture.

Think man.

 

[JackSparrow]

You have to be clearer than that !

Start by quoting where I contradict myself .... You will not because you cannot.

Do you agree with the article you posted or not ?

Yes or no ?

To repeat :
CARM and your article state ABUNDANTLY clearly that decretive will is NOT the same as permissive will.

Do you agree with this or not. Yes or no, Be clear.


If you do not agree then explain why you posted a Calvinist article you do not agree with.

 

[cygnusx1]

God is NOT willing that any should perish - Thus sayeth the Lord.



So c1x

Now you pit scripture against scripture.

Think man.

I am we'll aware of your problem I just don't share how you dismiss a scripture in favour of another , they both teach a truth , your view excludes and destroys the text , mine upholds both.


It really isn't pitting scripture against scripture but comparing scripture with scripture and as you can see , ( maybe not) the wooden use of 2 Peter simply denies both scripture and common sense .... Think man !

 

[cygnusx1]

Do you agree with the article you posted or not ?

Yes or no ?

To repeat :
CARM and your article state ABUNDANTLY clearly that decretive will is NOT the same as permissive will.

Do you agree with this or not. Yes or no, Be clear.


If you do not agree then explain why you posted a Calvinist article you do not agree with.

I don't agree with CARM quote !

I do agree with the three extensive quotes I gave you , if you have a problem with any quote I gave then quote where you think the problem is , not the bit you added to it in red!


This is real easy , is that which God permits also decreed ?

From my first extensive quote yes !


You may have missed it , here you are again :

"God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious".


Gods decree included the permission of sin !

Thus there is no back peddling or changing of my mind whatsoever .

 

[JackSparrow]

Peace to you. My head is spinning and I am going to have a beer.

Some of your post

"his is real easy , is that which God permits also decreed ?

"God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious".
"

Not sure what you mean at all.

For me, God did not decree sin. He gave man enough free will to make his own decision but not enough to thwart the end game God had in mind.

God walks off and leaves man totally free to do what he wants. E.g God only walked with Adam in the cool of the day. However all this freedom does not impinge on God. Man is in a finite box, simple as that. An example: Man tried to build a tower to reach the heavens. Did God predestine and control each and every action ? NO

God cleared off and had a few beers ( maybe wine )safe in the knowledge that man could not get to any point that God would not know in advance. Thus he did not have to predestine their every move to omnisciently know all things. Crass example but I hope you see the point.

In short God permitted man to do the hell what he ( man ) wanted. This is where I am hard line adamant that God is not the author of sin. No way. Wrong.

When you say “permissive” not “efficacious" I have not thr foggiest what that means.

In short God gave man more free will than man could know what to do with. He did this for his own purpose. That he did this cannot impinge on his infinite attributes. In short I dispute that God had to ordain all of man's actions. The main reason being is that this brings God down to man's level.

Hope this helps

 

[JackSparrow]

.. the wooden use of 2 Peter simply denies both scripture and common sense .... Think man !

Joke, surely.

How can scripture deny scripture ?

 

[Skala]

Why would Jesus weep over Jerusalem?

Luke 19:41
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it.

Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

According to Calvinism’s view of election, the judgment of Jerusalem would have been the “good pleasure" of the Father (Ephesians 1:9-10). If that were so, why was it so disturbing to Jesus? Shouldn't Jesus have been pleased with the Father's will for Jerusalem?

Also, if Jesus was a Calvinist who knew the will of the Father and He really longed for them to be gathered unto Him, wouldn’t the Spirit simply have irresistibly drawn them?

Why would He weep over it if he was an Arminian? Didn't he know from eternity past that they wouldn't believe, and thus, choose to not elect them? Anyways, as is normal for you it seems, you are yet again looking for doctrine in passages that don't teach it.

It's funny, the argument you make about Jesus being pleased with the Father's choice. Because there is a passage where that exact thing happens (which you conveniently left out of your post)

Mat 11:21-27
(21) "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
(22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
(23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
(24) But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."
(25) At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
(26) yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
(27) All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Here, Christ tells Chorazin and Bethsaida that they would have repented if mighty works had been done in them. if God knew this, why didn't He perform said mighty works? If He knew without a shadow of a doubt that they would repent if these works had been done, why did God not do them? Isn't he desperate for them to repent and be saved?

However Christs's response to this is praise and thankfulness that the Father had "hidden" things from some people and revealed them to other people. What? Jesus actually THANKED the Father for being selective in his revelation? Yep.

If that isn't clear, he even continues to say that nobody can know the Father unless the Son chooses to reveal him to them. The implication is clear of these words.

 

[crimsonleaf]

.

 

[cygnusx1]

I do not understand you at all.

Decretive will - Let there be light - and there could be no other than be light. I.e Total command and control.

Permissive will - As you say God permitted evil. Not made it happen. ( least thats what I think you are saying).

What is true of one is true of the other , God has as much "total command and control" over every event He directly works (let there be light) as He does over what He wills to permit !

1. Decretive will is NOT permissive will - unless God wills against his will.

2. You say "Simply there is variety in Gods will of decree ". Ok List them please and provide Biblical evidence.

There are at least Four aspects of Gods will :

Start with will of PRECEPT , this is Gods will of command which is what men ought to do but can be rejected .

Secondly , you have Gods will of DECREE , this can never be broken or thwarted . God is sovereign .

Thirdly you have Gods will to PERMIT certain SINFUL events , such as the fall of Adam , this permission isn't bare permission , God does not go for a walk , He makes a wise decision over each and every single instance of what precisely He chooses to permit , if He chooses not to permit an event , even a sin , then He overrules and intervenes , simple . Even what God permits is within the decree , for what God chooses to permit He thereby makes the event certain !

Lastly , there is Gods will of complacency , which is what pleases God , such as all men being saved by a knowledge of the truth , which means The Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather he repent , this obviously is not Gods decree which is unconditional.

Furthermore , this subject has little to do with the sufficient efficient dichotomy , as far as I am concerned that issue has been cleared up , the atonement of Christ is efficient for the elect , as well as sufficient for anyone who hears the Gospel .

 

[Arcoe]

What is true of one is true of the other , God has as much "total command and control" over every event He directly works (let there be light) as He does over what He wills to permit !

There are at least Four aspects of Gods will :

Start with will of PRECEPT , this is Gods will of command which is what men ought to do but can be rejected .

Secondly , you have Gods will of DECREE , this can never be broken or thwarted . God is sovereign .

Thirdly you have Gods will to PERMIT certain SINFUL events , such as the fall of Adam , this permission isn't bare permission , God does not go for a walk , He makes a wise decision over each and every single instance of what precisely He chooses to permit , if He chooses not to permit an event , even a sin , then He overrules and intervenes , simple . Even what God permits is within the decree , for what God chooses to permit He thereby makes the event certain !

Lastly , there is Gods will of complacency , which is what pleases God , such as all men being saved by a knowledge of the truth , which means The Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather he repent , this obviously is not Gods decree which is unconditional.

Furthermore , this subject has little to do with the sufficient efficient dichotomy , as far as I am concerned that issue has been cleared up , the atonement of Christ is efficient for the elect , as well as sufficient for anyone who hears the Gospel .

So which will of God takes precedence? Does this make the other 'wills' inferior or subservient? Just asking. Why not have one will of God which includes all alternatives you've described?

 

[cygnusx1]

So which will of God takes precedence? Does this make the other 'wills' inferior or subservient? Just asking. Why not have one will of God which includes all alternatives you've described?

Gods will is varied and simple ! He doesn't log in and out with many identities .....

 

[JackSparrow]

What is true of one is true of the other , God has as much "total command and control" over every event He directly works (let there be light) as He does over what He wills to permit !





There are at least Four aspects of Gods will :

Start with will of PRECEPT , this is Gods will of command which is what men ought to do but can be rejected .

Secondly , you have Gods will of DECREE , this can never be broken or thwarted . God is sovereign .

Thirdly you have Gods will to PERMIT certain SINFUL events , such as the fall of Adam , this permission isn't bare permission , God does not go for a walk , He makes a wise decision over each and every single instance of what precisely He chooses to permit , if He chooses not to permit an event , even a sin , then He overrules and intervenes , simple . Even what God permits is within the decree , for what God chooses to permit He thereby makes the event certain !

Lastly , there is Gods will of complacency , which is what pleases God , such as all men being saved by a knowledge of the truth , which means The Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather he repent , this obviously is not Gods decree which is unconditional.

Furthermore , this subject has little to do with the sufficient efficient dichotomy , as far as I am concerned that issue has been cleared up , the atonement of Christ is efficient for the elect , as well as sufficient for anyone who hears the Gospel .

OK, that is your interpretation.

I am of the view that the Geneva Institute article and CARM is far closer the that described in the Bible.

Thanks again for posting the artilcle.

 

[cygnusx1]

OK, that is your interpretation.

I am of the view that the Geneva Institute article and CARM is far closer the that described in the Bible.

Thanks again for posting the artilcle.

The Geneva institute article is sound (that's why I posted it) the CARM article is ill thought out sound bite (IMO) we have a different definition for permission ,

Permission as seen by CJ : God goes AWAL and Adam does the unexpected , God has to fix Adams mess.

Permission as seen by CX1 : God permits Adam to fall , this permission being an act of the will serves Gods plan , to send Christ , Adam,s failure does what it was meant to do , it serves Christ .

The "permission " in the first instance is more like licence , " do whatever you want to do " , the permission in the second instance is controlled for a purpose , God knows what He is doing and He knows what to allow and what not to allow.

Why and Where do you think I would disagree with the Genevan article ?

 

[JackSparrow]

CX!

We are going around in circles on this and another thread.

1.
[I"]God goes AWAL and Adam does the unexpected , God has to fix Adams mess."[/I]

No non Calvinist thinks anything like this. Straw man nonsense. Sure lots of cranks are around but genuine thinking non Calvinists - Orthodox, Catholic, Arminian, SBC, Methodist, etc - do not think anything like this. Waste of time going over it again. If this is what you conclude they think then you are wasting your life away.

2. The Geneva article harmonizes with CARM regrading the types of God's will. It says God is NOT the author of sin. Therfore he did not Decree Adam to sin. Further down

"Though sin is able to be restrained by God, and though he obviously permits it, he always employs it for his ultimate glory. However, sin is never said to be produced by God, and sin is never said to be condoned by him. Sin remains that which is contrary to the moral principles of God."

To say God decreed sin. Adam's fall or any other sin flatly contradicts this article.

God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious”
The best Scriptural term to describe God’s relationship toward the inclusion of evil in his universe is “permit”. God “allows” or “permits” his creatures to rebel. He is not to be thought of as being in them rebelling against his own moral principles. He has “allowed” ["eiasen" (ειασε&#957 from "eao" (εα&#969] them to act upon their corrupted desires

Acts 14:16 “and in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways;”

Acts 17:30 “therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent.”

Ordain,Decree Cause such it will infallibly come about.
Therefore we say that God is not the cause of sin. The term “cause” is used of that which is directly responsible for an action or that which directly brings a change or action into being.

In short the article resolve the commonly held interpretation that God is the author of all sin and all humanity is a mere puppet show as otherwise he would not be sovereign

Fantastic.

However:

Conversation with Progmonk on another thread shows there is a dispute on the interpretation of Is 47:5. The Geneva article states the interpretation that God creates evil is wrong. It goes further and states the KJV is in error and the correct translation is shown in the NASB. Progmonk has posted a video where the calvinist author states the opposite.

Take you pick, its your choice. I shall be in contact with a professional Bible translator next week so I will investigate this further.

 

[cygnusx1]

CX!

We are going around in circles on this and another thread.

1.
[I"]God goes AWAL and Adam does the unexpected , God has to fix Adams mess."[/I]

No non Calvinist thinks anything like this. Straw man nonsense. Sure lots of cranks are around but genuine thinking non Calvinists - Orthodox, Catholic, Arminian, SBC, Methodist, etc - do not think anything like this. Waste of time going over it again. If this is what you conclude they think then you are wasting your life away.

2. The Geneva article harmonizes with CARM regrading the types of God's will. It says God is NOT the author of sin. Therfore he did not Decree Adam to sin. Further down

"Though sin is able to be restrained by God, and though he obviously permits it, he always employs it for his ultimate glory. However, sin is never said to be produced by God, and sin is never said to be condoned by him. Sin remains that which is contrary to the moral principles of God."

To say God decreed sin. Adam's fall or any other sin flatly contradicts this article.

God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious”
The best Scriptural term to describe God’s relationship toward the inclusion of evil in his universe is “permit”. God “allows” or “permits” his creatures to rebel. He is not to be thought of as being in them rebelling against his own moral principles. He has “allowed” ["eiasen" (ειασε&#957 from "eao" (εα&#969] them to act upon their corrupted desires

Acts 14:16 “and in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways;”

Acts 17:30 “therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent.”

Ordain,Decree Cause such it will infallibly come about.
Therefore we say that God is not the cause of sin. The term “cause” is used of that which is directly responsible for an action or that which directly brings a change or action into being.

In short the article resolve the commonly held interpretation that God is the author of all sin and all humanity is a mere puppet show as otherwise he would not be sovereign

Fantastic.

However:

Conversation with Progmonk on another thread shows there is a dispute on the interpretation of Is 47:5. The Geneva article states the interpretation that God creates evil is wrong. It goes further and states the KJV is in error and the correct translation is shown in the NASB. Progmonk has posted a video where the calvinist author states the opposite.

Take you pick, its your choice. I shall be in contact with a professional Bible translator next week so I will investigate this further.

I don't disagree with the article at all , and evil in Isaiah passage quoted is calamity not sin ....


Now look again , before you criticise me of going around in circles , you have just quoted my own view , yes look above carefully and notice "Gods decree concerning sin was permissive " have you got that ?

You need to be sure what you believe , it's no good using a text that later turns out to be saying something you regret , the text says God decreed sin , sin was decreed by Gods permission .....

You seem too quick to cling to the idea of permission and in the process ignore what is said ,
The article doesn't say permission isn't decreed , it doesn't say Gods decree is different from permission , it looks at Gods decree to permit sin . That is the classical Calvinist position !


The CARM article doesn't gell with the Genevan article at all , CARM seems to separate the decree from the permissive will of God , the article from the Genevan website clearly doesn't make that mistake , Gods decree is varied .

 

[JackSparrow]

I don't disagree with the article at all , and evil in Isaiah passage quoted is calamity not sin ....

Not so good fro Progmonk's Calvinist video.

Now look again , before you criticise me of going around in circles , you have just quoted my own view , yes look above carefully and notice "Gods decree concerning sin was permissive " have you got that ?
....

As I said. This going nowhere. I am happy with CARM and the article.

The article states "God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious”" for any one who is interested to go and see for themselves. God id NOT the author of sin.

I guess you will want the last word so I won't reply to you next post on this issues in the two threads.

Foreknowledge - I expect CX! will contradict God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious”.

Nope thats predestination. Nope for ordained.

Time for tea. Think Ill go and put the kettle on.

 

[cygnusx1]

Not so good fro Progmonk's Calvinist video.



As I said. This going nowhere. I am happy with CARM and the article.


I guess you will wont the last word so I wont reply to you next post on tis issues in the two threads.

Glad you are happy with the Genevan article which states God decreed sin , by a permissive decree . I will remember

 

[cygnusx1]

Compare the two articles and spot the difference :

CARM article :
The Permissive Will of God is that will which God does not decree to occur, nor is it his will since it is not in accordance with his Law. God's permissive will is his will to permit sin to occur. God allows man to rebel against him, and in this God permits people to do such things as lie, steal, etc.


Genevan article :

God’s decree concerning sin was “permissive” not “efficacious”
The best Scriptural term to describe God’s relationship toward the inclusion of evil in his universe is “permit”. God “allows” or “permits” his creatures to rebel. He is not to be thought of as being in them rebelling against his own moral principles. He has “allowed” ["eiasen" (ειασε&#957 from "eao" (εα&#969] them to act upon their corrupted desires


CARM separates Gods decree from his permissive will , Genevan article does NOT .

 

[gmm4j]

if Jesus, who knew the will of the Father, really longed for them to be gathered unto Him, wouldn’t the Spirit simply have irresistibly drawn them?