Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Bottom line.
Lesson 4 â 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.
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
You have to be clearer than that !
Start by quoting where I contradict myself .... You will not because you cannot.
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.God is NOT willing that any should perish - Thus sayeth the Lord.
So c1x
Now you pit scripture against scripture.
Think man.
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.
.. the wooden use of 2 Peter simply denies both scripture and common sense .... Think man !
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?
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 !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).
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.
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?
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.
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" (ειασενfrom "eao" (εαω ] 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.
Not so good fro Progmonk's Calvinist video.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 ?
....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?