Who’s choice is it?

[Reformationist]

I believe God's desire is for all to accept.

Why would God desire something that He knows will not come to pass? It seems a bit of a waste of His time to desire something that He is fully aware will not come to fruition. As I said, He is setting Himself for eternal disappointment. If God's desire is for a certain thing to come to pass but does nothing to ensure that it comes to pass then why does He do it?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

You highlight the wrong section. The verse says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering TOWARD US, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Peter is not saying that God is not willing that anyone ever created not perish. On the contrary, he clearly qualifies who God is longsuffering toward, US. Whose "us?" Is it everyone in the world ever created? Well, let's go back a few verses:

2 Peter 3:1
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)

Who are Peter's "beloved?" Who is he writing to? Whose mind is he stirring up? He says "your pure minds..." Do you think Peter views all people as having "pure minds?" It is quite clear that he does not because he differentiates between his "beloved" and those who are clearly not the intended recipients of this second epistle:

2 Peter 3:3-5
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,...

Clearly Peter is not talking of the "scoffers" who walk "according to their own lusts" and "willfully forget that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water..." It heinously violates interpretive laws to say that "us" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers to all people but acknowledge that Peter is differentiating between "us" and "scoffers."

Let's go back a bit further:

2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Who is the epistle written to? It is written to "those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." "Us" is clearly identified at the very beginning of 2 Peter. All you've done is take a verse out of context.

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the world (John 3:16 for one).

Who is "the world" and how did you come to the conclusion that this is a reference to "all people?" If it's the word "world" then, pray tell, what is your basis for believing that "kosmos" refers to every single person ever created? The truth is that it cannot mean all people or it violates other Scripture. Additionally, the word "world" has something like ten different meanings in Scripture. How do you come to the conclusion that in this instance the Greek word "kosmos" means "all people?"

And I believe that it break's God's heart to see folks refuse to believe.

It breaks God's heart? You speak of God as if He is a created being with nothing more than the power to see His plan unfold but do nothing to ensure that it takes the path He desires. Do you think God merely a being who can see the future but not form it?

I don't think it is a matter of fairness really, but that we are created in His image and we have to make the choice.

So why do some make the choice to serve Him and others the choice to rebell?

Freewill is involved. Obstinate natures. Romans 1 tells us of those that there are some that "God gave them over to degrading passions.."

So the "obstinate nature" of a created being thwarts the plan and desire of the Almighty? Are you honestly contending that God set out to save every single person and created man stopped Him from being successful? Is our will more "free" than God's?

I believe that God draws, looks into the heart and mind - qualifying us, gives us to Jesus (as described in an earlier post), and that He forgives, cleanses, renews, regenerates, spiritually circumcizes us, adopts us as children, and seals us with the Holy Spirit.

So God saves us based on what He sees in our heart and mind? FreeinChrist, you have just told us that God sees the truth of who we are and in many cases He is pleased enough that it merits our salvation. How in the world is that not boasting in our own righteousness? Scripture is explicit on the nature of unregenerate man and the picture it paints is not a pretty one. Man, in his unregenerate state is wholly unrighteous and undeserving of God's mercy. He rebels against God in every thought of his mind. Even our sacrifices are like filthy rags to Him. Are you actually contending that God sees something redeeming in man and saves him based on that quality??!!

That is part of the 'manward' act of salvation.

What "manward act of salvation?" Where is that spoken of in Scripture? If there is a "manward act of salvation" then we are not saved by grace. At best we are saved by a combination of Christ's works and our own. Is that what you think?

What we have to do is repond - believe (the 'Godward' part of salvation). So I believe God is every bit responsible for our salvation. Afterall, we wouldn't respond if He didn't call.

But everyone get's this call right? This same call? Let's put this in different terms so I'm sure I understand you. Let's say that you and nine other people are standing together in a group. I call out, "anyone who wants to can come to the ice cream parlor and I'll buy them ice cream." Five of them, including you, respond. Who is responsible for those that responded? Was it that those five saw merit in my offer or was my call to them different than the call to those that didn't respond?

But there are those who hear and seem to respond, to the point of experiencing the Spirit in corporate fellowship, and just walk away.

Okay. But does that outward appearance of faith indicate the internal manifestation of God's saving grace? IOW, were those people ever saved?

That is like wondering if since we all have corrupt natures, why aren't we all like Jeffery Dahmers or Ted Bundys.

The ONLY reason we aren't all like those people is because God restrains us from being so. To deny this is to credit yourself as being a better and more worthy person of God's grace. Believe me, if God withheld His grace from us we'd be just as bad, if not worse than, those men.

We are not robots, having been made in the image of God, and some will respond and others will not.

But why do some respond and others don't? Where is the difference to be found? Is it in the recipient of the call or in the call itself? Where do you boast? If it's in the creation then at least admit it. I'll disagree with you but at least your view would be consistant. It is incongruous to state that all people get the exact same call and respond differently. Either God's call accomplishes what it sets out to do or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you are saying that God fails.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Where is the biblical evidence that this is true?

How's this:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

That's exactly what I said.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

But still in all I think a corrupt nature is more or less being read into or assumed, nothing definitive.

Genesis 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

How far do you need to read into "every intent of the thoughts of his [man] heart was only evil continually" to see that man's nature is corrupt?

Those verses can also support that because of sin and lack of sanctifying grace we are powerless to fight against sin even though we may try.

Talk about reading in to it and assuming? Romans 3:11 says, "There is none who seeks after God" yet you assume that some do. You say, "we are powerless to fight against sin even though we may try." Unregenerate man don't try to fight against sin. Sin is a tasty treat to the wicked. They don't fight against it. They embrace it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

?? First, we are given to Jesus. Exactly where do you think I wrote that we are given to Jesus as a result of our own righteousness?

Right here:

I firmly believe that one is draw by God, and when a person claims to believe in Jesus, God looks into their heart and mind and knows if it is a true confession of belief or not. If true, He gives them to Christ who will not lose them. Jesus gives them eternal life, raising us up on the last day.

It's quite clear. You think that we are given to Christ because God sees that our confession of belief in Jesus is seen as true. You clearly believe that being given to Christ a result of something in us. That's crediting your own righteousness for God's work of giving you to Christ. So, you made this profession of faith prior to actually being given to Christ. You were not "in Christ" when you made the confession. Therefore, it is your own righteousness that you credit with being given to Christ.

In regards to being 'dead in our trespasses' - this refers to being condemned to death as a result of our sinful nature. It is because of Adam's sin that death came into the world, and it is through Jesus Christ that we can experience eternal life.

It's strange. You want to use the proper Greek when it seems to suit you but you fail to refer to it when it doesn't. The word that is used is "nekros" from the word "nekus," a corpse. "Nekros" doesn't, in any way, refer to the condemnation of death as a result of our sinful nature. It means, simply, "one that has breathed his last, lifeless; deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell; destitute of life, without life, inanimate." Metaphorically it means "spiritually dead; destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right; destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative." Which of those accepted definitions do you take to be a reference to "the condemnation of death as a result of our sinful nature." No, FreeinChrist, "nekros" plainly means "spiritually dead," not "spiritually condemned."

Let's look at the verse:
Jhn 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

The Greek word for 'know' is 'ginosko' and means 'to know experientially' or 'to know intuitively'. I believe this refers to those who respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

That's some great cross reference work,...except for one thing. "Ginosko" is not a reference to "those who respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit." It is a reference to Christ. The verse says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." Are you contending that Jesus was saying that He "experiementally or intuitively knows those who will respond?"

Reread my last post. Compare what God does to what man does. Then show me exactly where I give the credit to man over God.

Well, first, you say "God's desire is for all to accept." Do all accept? Of course not. So, it's clearly not "God's desire" that causes man to accept. Second, you say, "Jesus died for the sins of the world." So, it's clear that Christ's death doesn't cause man to accept or all men would because, according to you, He died for everyone. Then, you said, "I believe that it break's God's heart to see folks refuse to believe." So, clearly it isn't the breaking of God's heart that causes man to accept. Then, you say, "God draws, looks into the heart and mind - qualifying us, gives us to Jesus." It's not God's call that qualifies us. Rather, you contend that it's what He sees when He looks into the heart and mind that qualifies us.

I've yet to see where you credit God for man's acceptance. Here's what you say about man accepting: "we are created in His image and we have to make the choice." So, as you believe we are all "created in His image" it cannot be that that causes us to accept. What does cause us to accept? Well, according to you, "we make the choice." Why do some make the choice and some don't I ask? You say, "Freewill is involved. Obstinate natures." So, according to you, it's not "God's desire" or "Jesus' death" or "the breaking of God's heart" or "being created in His image" or "God's call" that causes us to accept. According to you, it's our "free will." That's where you place the credit, man's choice. Your view causes salvation to cease to be by grace and become the wages of our choice, the wages of our work.

God bless

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD HAT ON again *

Let me also add that while this forum is for debating between the Protestants it in no way is to become a breeding ground for posts against those who are not. . .posts as such will be either edited or deleted. In other words: there is to be no postings on what Catholics believe by any Protestant in this forum.

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[FreeinChrist]

Why would God desire something that He knows will not come to pass? It seems a bit of a waste of His time to desire something that He is fully aware will not come to fruition. As I said, He is setting Himself for eternal disappointment. If God's desire is for a certain thing to come to pass but does nothing to ensure that it comes to pass then why does He do it?

You highlight the wrong section. The verse says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering TOWARD US, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Peter is not saying that God is not willing that anyone ever created not perish. On the contrary, he clearly qualifies who God is longsuffering toward, US. Whose "us?" Is it everyone in the world ever created? Well, let's go back a few verses:

2 Peter 3:1
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)

Who are Peter's "beloved?" Who is he writing to? Whose mind is he stirring up? He says "your pure minds..." Do you think Peter views all people as having "pure minds?" It is quite clear that he does not because he differentiates between his "beloved" and those who are clearly not the intended recipients of this second epistle:

The epistle is written to Christians, but that does not mean that all in verse 9 refers just to Christians. I very much take that verse to mean that God seems slow to fulfill His promise, but will take the time...because He wants all to come to repentence who will. My view is supported by Paul, who wrote the following in a letter to Timothy:
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties {and} prayers, petitions {and} thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


I believe this passage is clear that 'all' means 'all' as he specifies all who are in authority.

God makes it clear that His thoughts are not our thoughts. Who are we to decide if what God wishes is a waste of time?

Can you show me one verse that God does not want all to
come to belief in Him?

2 Peter 3:3-5
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,...

Clearly Peter is not talking of the "scoffers" who walk "according to their own lusts" and "willfully forget that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water..." It heinously violates interpretive laws to say that "us" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers to all people but acknowledge that Peter is differentiating between "us" and "scoffers."

This does not support a view that God only wishes that only some come to repentence. The context of the passage is about what will happen in the last days - it is not a discussion of who Jesus died for or that God only wishees for some to come to repentence. The passage does says that God will take His time, He doesn't want anyone to perish. It is our own fault if we do. I will not adress a section in here, because it does not really address the issue. The letter is to Christians - but that does not change the "all" in verse 9.

Who is "the world" and how did you come to the conclusion that this is a reference to "all people?" If it's the word "world" then, pray tell, what is your basis for believing that "kosmos" refers to every single person ever created? The truth is that it cannot mean all people or it violates other Scripture. Additionally, the word "world" has something like ten different meanings in Scripture. How do you come to the conclusion that in this instance the Greek word "kosmos" means "all people?"

The Greek word for 'world in John 3:16 (which I quoted and you are responding to) is 'kosmos' - it could be translated as 'universe', being the sum total of the matter . It can be used to apply to the sum total of mankind.
It can be mean a decoration or adorment (I Peter 3:3), but that doesn't fit John 3:16. It can mean the order of the universe or the world )Matthew 13:35, 24:21, Luke 11:50, John 17:5 and more). It can refer to just the earth - as in Mark 16:15, John 16:21, 28, 21:25, I tim 3:16...) It can stand for the present order of the world, or for "the public", can refer to to things that are material but transitory. The things of this world, "kosmos', are spoken of as incomplete in I Cor. 1:27, 28, 4:13. Context is important.

Now I can find a verse that says Jesus died for the Jews, and another that He died for sinners (and that's everybody), for "us" (Christians), ...but to say that He died just for the Jews conflicts with the truth that He died for Gentiles also. To say that He just died for Christians conflicts with that He died for sinners, for the sin of the world, for Jews (not all came to Him). Rather, Jews and Christians and Gentiles, etc are subsets within the one concept - Jesus died for the world.

It breaks God's heart? You speak of God as if He is a created being with nothing more than the power to see His plan unfold but do nothing to ensure that it takes the path He desires. Do you think God merely a being who can see the future but not form it?

Of course, I believe that God created the world, sees the future and is in absolute control. And even being in absolute control at all time, He allowed sin to enter the world, didn't He? He has allowed Satan to work his evil ways - correct? He has allowed men to walk away from Him, right? Allowed Israel to stray, right? Why?


When I speak of God's 'heart', it is like me saying, "I know in my heart." when I say this, I am not really believing that that muscular organ beating in my chest can think. It is a way to distract away the issue by making the accusation that you have in the above statement. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I believe God is a created being.

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.Gen 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Does this mean that the writer of Genesis thinks God is a created being??

Now consider these verses:
Eze 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

Eze 33:11 "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'
Why didn't God make them? In these two verses, sure looks like He desires that all come to repentence....

There is another verse where it says that God mourns the death of the wicked, but rejoiceth in the death of the righteous. I believe that it is because the righteous will join Him in heaven, but the wicked will spend an eternity in hell.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So why do some make the choice to serve Him and others the choice to rebell?

Doesn't it say in the scriptures that sin entered the world through Adam? We are all born with sinful natures, correct?
We are born in original sin. It is our nature to rebel, to think we can do it all ourselves. And there is this created being called Satan who is trying to influence the world badly - on't you agree?

But we are also created in the image of God. Does this mean physically? I don't think so...I don't believe God has to eat. I do think it refers to the spirit. I have never bought into the Calvinist idea of the total depravity of man, that man cannot even want to search out God. There are so many false religions out there, and I what I believe is that most do search for answers beyond the physical - but many are not looking or listening to the right spirit.

I believe there is a real spiritual battle going on. Don't you?

So the "obstinate nature" of a created being thwarts the plan and desire of the Almighty? Are you honestly contending that God set out to save every single person and created man stopped Him from being successful? Is our will more "free" than God's?

I believe that God desires that all come to repentence and faith in Him. It is not that our will can overcome Him - but that He allows us to use our free will.
He allows Satan to to exert influence on mankind, correct?
He allowed sin to enter the world, right?

Please don't try to misrepresent my view in trying to make it out that I think we can have power over God.

So God saves us based on what He sees in our heart and mind? FreeinChrist, you have just told us that God sees the truth of who we are and in many cases He is pleased enough that it merits our salvation.

Wrong - you are not uinderstanding what I wrote (or misrepresenting it? ). I never used the word merit - again, please do not try and put words in my mouth, so to speak. I will explain it again.
According to John 6, no man comes to Christ unless he is drawn by the Father, is granted to come to Jesus by the Father, and is given to Jesus by the Father. I don't believe that our prayer of repentence is accepted by God unless, in looking into our heart and mind, God sees that it is true repentence. Hebrews 4:12 says that "the word of God is ....sharper than any two edged sword.. able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." There is another verse that states that while can only see the outward man, God looks at the inward man.

Are you really going to disagree with me that God can know our true mind and heart?
Going on..after looking into our heart and mind (having drawn us to Christ), He then forgives, cleanses, renews and regenerates, adopting us as children, and sealing us with the Holy Spirit - granting to us to come to Christ, having qualified us, and giving us to Christ.

It is not merit. It is by grace that we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is God who draws, grants, gives, cleanses, forgives, qualifies, seals, renews, adopts.....and more. It isn't on merit - because it is God who had the plan and gave His only begotten Son (Himself, actually) to provide the salvation. We can't boast in our own righteousness, because we would be absolutely nowhere without God.

Now, hopefully I won't be accused of thinking we are saved by merit anymore!

Scripture is explicit on the nature of unregenerate man and the picture it paints is not a pretty one. Man, in his unregenerate state is wholly unrighteous and undeserving of God's mercy. He rebels against God in every thought of his mind. Even our sacrifices are like filthy rags to Him. Are you actually contending that God sees something redeeming in man and saves him based on that quality??!!

And I hope that now you can see where you are wrong about what I believe.
By the way - can you show me a verse in the Bible that says God only wants some to be saved, and gives them no choice?

What "manward act of salvation?" Where is that spoken of in Scripture? If there is a "manward act of salvation" then we are not saved by grace. At best we are saved by a combination of Christ's works and our own. Is that what you think?

The King James Version uses 'man-ward' and 'God-ward' in describing parts of salvation in one book in one passage. I forget the book, and cannot look it up tonight. By manward - it means God to man. That God sent His Son to die for our sins, and that God draws us, that God forgives, cleanses, ..... etc. The God-ward would only be responding to God when we are drawn by Him. Grace is given man-ward - god to us, correct?

But everyone get's this call right? This same call? Let's put this in different terms so I'm sure I understand you. Let's say that you and nine other people are standing together in a group. I call out, "anyone who wants to can come to the ice cream parlor and I'll buy them ice cream." Five of them, including you, respond. Who is responsible for those that responded? Was it that those five saw merit in my offer or was my call to them different than the call to those that didn't respond?

There can be many reasons - perhaps the person cares too much for their money - like the rich young ruler. They don't really believe. Perhaps they enjoy their sinful life too much. They buy into Satan's lies. Look tot he parable of the soils.
If God didn't want us to choose Him and to come with a repentent heart (after being drawn by Him)- then why did He allow sin to come into the world in the first place? He God didn't want man to have any freewill - then why did He allow Adam to sin?

 

[FreeinChrist]

It's quite clear. You think that we are given to Christ because God sees that our confession of belief in Jesus is seen as true. You clearly believe that being given to Christ a result of something in us.

Wrong - please read my other posts.

It's strange. You want to use the proper Greek when it seems to suit you but you fail to refer to it when it doesn't. The word that is used is "nekros" from the word "nekus," a corpse. "Nekros" doesn't, in any way, refer to the condemnation of death as a result of our sinful nature. No, FreeinChrist, "nekros" plainly means "spiritually dead," not "spiritually condemned." It means, simply, "one that has breathed his last, lifeless; deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell; destitute of life, without life, inanimate." Metaphorically it means "spiritually dead; destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right; destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative." Which of those accepted definitions do you take to be a reference to "the condemnation of death as a result of our sinful nature." No, FreeinChrist, "nekros" plainly means "spiritually dead," not "spiritually condemned."

I went back to read the thread to get what you are referring to. Perhaps it is the post where I wrote to Dr. Dex about jusification? That the Greek word for it is a legal term meaning we are declared righteous and are free from condemnation?
?? red herring here, I think.

I have to stand by what I have written. We are born spiritually dead and in condemnation. Read John 3:17 - 'he who believeth not is condemned already...' We are born in original sin - separated from God. See the definitions you provided of nekros. How it is translated and understood depends on context, will you agree to that?
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
Paul is writing to living Christians in this letter (though it continues on to us). Obviously, there souls had not been in hell already because they were alive yet - so the meaning is more metaphorical - their souls were hellbound until God 'quickened them' , or regenerated them, made them alive.
I would say that being hell bound is being under condemnation. And that being 'quickened' by God is not being under condemantion.

And that still does not change that man must respond to God's drawing him. If God did not want us to make a willing choice - why did He allow sin in the world in the first place?

I've yet to see where you credit God for man's acceptance.

You've got to be kidding me!
How many times have I typed that man cannot come to Christ unless God draws Him??? About 6 times? Seems like more. You had stated that I believe that salvation is all by man - and I posted what I believe God does in regards to salvation.

Here's what you say about man accepting: "we are created in His image and we have to make the choice." So, as you believe we are all "created in His image" it cannot be that that causes us to accept. What does cause us to accept? Well, according to you, "we make the choice." Why do some make the choice and some don't I ask? You say, "Freewill is involved. Obstinate natures." So, according to you, it's not "God's desire" or "Jesus' death" or "the breaking of God's heart" or "being created in His image" or "God's call" that causes us to accept. According to you, it's our "free will." That's where you place the credit, man's choice. Your view causes salvation to cease to be by grace and become the wages of our choice, the wages of our work.

You would have me believe that God created mankind, then allowed sin into the world, so that only some are saved who He forced to believe and that God wants a whole bunch to burn in hell that He did n't let believe. That's disgusting!

Show me one verse that says that God only wants some to come to salvation and wants others to not have a chance and burn in hell.

You are hung up on what causes (forces) us to accept. No, it is not God's desire to force us to a belief - that wouldn't be much of a belief! Our witness wouldn't mean much! No, it is not the fact that Jesus died for the whole world that causes (forces) us to believe - we are drawn by His love! Responding to love - what a novel concept! Again, it is not God's call that causes (forces) us to accept - we have to respond.

We repond to God's love, His convincing, His drawing us. That some are too resistent is a sad fact.
But in responding to God, there is no way we can take any credit.
We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not of ourselves; it is the gift of God. While man just reponds to God with repentence and belief when led by God, it is God who sent His Son (Himself) to die for our sins, and who draws, grants, gives, forgives, cleanses, renews, regenerates, adopts us, seals us with the Holy Spirit, etc. etc, etc.,

I am weary of this repeatedly stated false accusation that I believe we are saved on our own merit when, in fact, I strongly believe we are NOT saved on our own merit! It is getting offensive, Reformationist.
Please learn that just because one is not a die-hard Calvinist that it doesn't mean that they don't believe we are saved by grace.

And please answer the many questions I have posted to you.

 

[Reformationist]

FreeinChrist, this will be my last response to you as it's getting a bit monotonous for me to point out inconsistancies in your views and have you just disregard them. However, since you took the time to respond in such length I will try to cover your last three posts in this one reply.

The epistle is written to Christians, but that does not mean that all in verse 9 refers just to Christians.

If you can acknowledge that the audience of the epistle was limited to Christians then it makes absolutely NO sense, whatsoever, to then imply that "us" is qualified as unlimited.

Think about this. Let's say that you're my biological sister and we have two other siblings. Let's say we're all sitting in the living room of your house one day with three of our friends. So, there are four siblings and three friends of the family. I tell you and our two other siblings that a letter has arrived from our father. I open the letter and it starts off with the salutation, "My dear children." At this point would you think the letter is written to the seven of us or only the four siblings who are actually his children? Let's move on. Then the letter proceeds to say, "I love you all so much." Now, does "all" refer to all people in attendence or to those who were signified in the salutation, "my dear children?" Then, the letter says, "I want you all to come visit me." Tell me FreeinChrist, does the "all" in that statement refer to everyone in the room or only those to whom the letter is actually addressed? You see, context is equally as important as the words. We both know that the author was a Christian and you acknowledge that the intended audience were Christian. The pronoun "us" and the adjective "all" are qualified by these facts. Look at the verse in question:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward US, not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance.

"Any" is qualified by the "us." Who is the "us?" It's those to whom the epistle was written, "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)..." Peter wrote the epistle to his "beloved," those of "pure mind."

I sincerely hope you can get past the need to arbitrarily disagree and see that the concept that "any" referring to every single person ever created is just ludicrous as well as grammatically illogical. "Any" is qualified. Pure and simple.

I very much take that verse to mean that God seems slow to fulfill His promise, but will take the time...because He wants all to come to repentence who will.

I have no problem with this statement. I agree that God suffers the sinfulness of man until He has gathered unto Himself all who will come to repentence. The big point of disagreement between you and I seems to be that you think every single person equally capable of coming to repentence. Repentence is the fruit of the Lord's grace. It's not the [/i]possible[/i] fruit of the Lord's grace. It's the absolute fruit of the Lord's grace. If God gives someone the grace to repent, they do. Everytime. Always. God's grace always accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish. No one is able to thwart God's will. If it is His desire that someone repent, He gives them the grace that brings them to repentence.

My view is supported by Paul, who wrote the following in a letter to Timothy:
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties {and} prayers, petitions {and} thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God desires every person to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, huh? I tell ya, if I had to go through my life thinking, as you do, that God desired something to happen and then it didn't I doubt I could even get out of bed every day. I'd just lay there wondering, "Well, God says He wants everyone to be saved and I know that not everyone will be...so what does that say about God? Can I trust that He'll even be able to keep His promise? The Bible says that God will lose none of His children. Can I trust that?" Truly sad. I feel very sorry for anyone who thinks God so impotent that all He can do is desire something and not ensure it comes to pass.

The Greek word for 'world in John 3:16 (which I quoted and you are responding to) is 'kosmos' - it could be translated as 'universe', being the sum total of the matter . It can be used to apply to the sum total of mankind.
It can be mean a decoration or adorment (I Peter 3:3), but that doesn't fit John 3:16. It can mean the order of the universe or the world )Matthew 13:35, 24:21, Luke 11:50, John 17:5 and more). It can refer to just the earth - as in Mark 16:15, John 16:21, 28, 21:25, I tim 3:16...) It can stand for the present order of the world, or for "the public", can refer to to things that are material but transitory. The things of this world, "kosmos', are spoken of as incomplete in I Cor. 1:27, 28, 4:13. Context is important.

LOL! You're kidding, right? You are telling me that context is important? The concordance at Blue Letter Bible lists many possible definitions for "kosmos" but it is the 8th definition that I find startling:

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Ironically, you don't even list the possibility that "kosmos" is a reference to "believers only." Coincidence or merely poor research?

Here's something else I find interesting. You keep refering to 2 Peter 3:9 and how it says that God wants "all" to come to repentence. If I look up that passage I find that the word "all" in Greek is "pas." Here's a little note in the definition portion of "pas":

... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

You know FreeinChrist, I was wrong. I don't have the energy or inclination to spend the next hour researching and explaining and exhorting and showing you how poorly you are doing with interpretation only to have you disregard all of the work I put in and continue to take Scripture out of context to suit your anthropocentric view of God's Word. I wish you well in your walk with God and I pray that you are not right because if you are, well, no one is safe. Your view makes God is so impotent that He can't even bring about His own plan, which could mean that the entire Bible could be a lie.

If any of my reformed brethren feel inclined to take up this discussion with FreeinChrist I encourage you to do so. She has done an admirable job of defending her view and has been very godly in her posts.

God bless

 

[FreeinChrist]

If you can acknowledge that the audience of the epistle was limited to Christians then it makes absolutely NO sense, whatsoever, to then imply that "us" is qualified as unlimited.

Think about this. Let's say that you're my biological sister and we have two other siblings. Let's say we're all sitting in the living room of your house one day with three of our friends. So, there are four siblings and three friends of the family. I tell you and our two other siblings that a letter has arrived from our father. I open the letter and it starts off with the salutation, "My dear children." At this point would you think the letter is written to the seven of us or only the four siblings who are actually his children? Let's move on. Then the letter proceeds to say, "I love you all so much." Now, does "all" refer to all people in attendence or to those who were signified in the salutation, "my dear children?" Then, the letter says, "I want you all to come visit me." Tell me FreeinChrist, does the "all" in that statement refer to everyone in the room or only those to whom the letter is actually addressed? You see, context is equally as important as the words. We both know that the author was a Christian and you acknowledge that the intended audience were Christian. The pronoun "us" and the adjective "all" are qualified by these facts. Look at the verse in question:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward US, not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance.

"Any" is qualified by the "us." Who is the "us?" It's those to whom the epistle was written, "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)..." Peter wrote the epistle to his "beloved," those of "pure mind."

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this, for I believe that is a poor interpretation. I do not believe in limited atonement, nor that God only desires some to come to repentence. And I backed it up with a passage from I Timothy.

I have no problem with this statement. I agree that God suffers the sinfulness of man until He has gathered unto Himself all who will come to repentence. The big point of disagreement between you and I seems to be that you think every single person equally capable of coming to repentence.

I believe that salvation is possible for all who believe.

Repentence is the fruit of the Lord's grace. It's not the [/i]possible[/i] fruit of the Lord's grace. It's the absolute fruit of the Lord's grace. If God gives someone the grace to repent, they do. Everytime. Always. God's grace always accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish. No one is able to thwart God's will. If it is His desire that someone repent, He gives them the grace that brings them to repentence.

I'm sorry but again we must agree to disagree. God draws a person to Christ - but He does not force belief on a person. It is His DESIRE that all come to repentence, that all believe in Christ.
God acccomplishes His purposes. This is written in scripture. I believe you err in confusing 'will' with 'grace'. They are two different words. Grace, as in Ephesians 2:8-9, is charis - to rejoice, joy, favor, a kindness granted, the absolute freeness of God's lovingkindness to men, unearned and unmerited favor.
"God's grace always accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish. "
This statement is the one in particular that I find as odd. God accomplishes whatever He wills, whatever purpose He has. But grace is unmerited favor, a gift. I think you intermix 'will', 'desire', and 'grace' as if they are one word when they are different.

God desires every person to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, huh? I tell ya, if I had to go through my life thinking, as you do, that God desired something to happen and then it didn't I doubt I could even get out of bed every day. I'd just lay there wondering, "Well, God says He wants everyone to be saved and I know that not everyone will be...so what does that say about God? Can I trust that He'll even be able to keep His promise? The Bible says that God will lose none of His children. Can I trust that?" Truly sad.I feel very sorry for anyone who thinks God so impotent that all He can do is desire something and not ensure it comes to pass.

I do not think our discussion will be worth continuing either - for the paragraph above is full of your own thinking and logic and not based on scripture. And I don't see that you take scripture in context. Example:
"The Bible says that God will lose none of His children."
Jhn 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
Jesus will not lose any who have been given to Him by the Father. Those that do not believe are not given to Jesus.
And yes, God wants everyone to be saved.
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


And I referenced this already. And then there are comments like this:
"I feel very sorry for anyone who thinks God so impotent that all He can do is desire something and not ensure it comes to pass."
Again, you are insinuating that I hold an opinion that I don't hold. Believeing that God desires that all come to repentence but that His will is that all make a choice - that he does not force belief on anyone is not = to a belief that God is impotent.

I note that in return, my questions were not addressed at all. I'll leave it at that.

 

[arnold777]

Reformationist
Did God ordain Adam to fall?
Did God created Adam knowing he will fall?
Did God desire Adam not to fall?

 

[Reformationist]

Did God ordain Adam to fall?

Yes.

Did God created Adam knowing he will fall?

Yes.

Did God desire Adam not to fall?

I can't give a one word answer to this because I'm not sure what would be the right answer. Partially because of the odd way in which it was worded, secondly because it is incongruous to imply that something happened that God did not, at least in some way, desire to come to pass.

The Fall of man was always part of God's plan so in that sense I'm sure that God desired that it come to pass, else He would not have ensured that it did. Let me qualify that by saying that God, in no way, forced Adam and Eve to rebell. They did so of their own choosing and were not coerced by God. Nor can we blame the devil for their transgression because the devil, like Adam and Eve, has no power to change the desires of another created being. The devil, and the rest of mankind, are capable of tempting, to be sure, but not changing the nature of another. Therefore, the Fall of man was decided in eternity and manifested in the reality of creation by the sinful inclinations of created man. The Fall, as with all things that come to pass, in it's own way, glorifies God. It ushers in the necessity of a Savior. As to whether God desired to inflict pain and suffering upon His creation, I can't see as how that was His motive. Again, it's important to note that the ordination of the Fall of man, as with all things, was to bring glory upon the Lord; And it did.

God bless

 

[arnold777]

How can one appoint in advance and not be the maker of the choice?
A choice is not a choice unless it's free.
If man is dead in trespasses and sins and is not responsible for receiving Christ, how can he be responsible for eating the fruit?
If God ordained Adam to eat the fruit, then that idea of God should go to hell and not man.

 

[Reformationist]

How can one appoint in advance and not be the maker of the choice?

Man makes choices. God does not make the choice for man, either for or against the Law of God. That's why man is responsible for his choices. Just so I'm clear, which choice are you referring to?

A choice is not a choice unless it's free.

What do you mean by "free?" Do you mean uncoerced? Unhindered? Unaffected by outside sources? What do you mean by "free?"

If man is dead in trespasses and sins and is not responsible for receiving Christ, how can he be responsible for eating the fruit?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean "not responsible for receiving Christ?"

If God ordained Adam to eat the fruit, then that idea of God should go to hell and not man.

God did not force Adam to eat the fruit. Adam chose to eat the fruit because he believed he knew better than God what was good for him.

I think you're confusing the ordination of God with the idea that God forcibly controlls man's actions.

Tell me something arnold, do you believe that the Plan of God did not originally include the Fall and that it happened apart from God's control?

God bless

 

[arnold777]

Man makes choices. God does not make the choice for man, either for or against the Law of God. That's why man is responsible for his choices. Just so I'm clear, which choice are you referring to?



What do you mean by "free?" Do you mean uncoerced? Unhindered? Unaffected by outside sources? What do you mean by "free?"

By free it would mean Adam could have not eaten. If he was ordained to eat then he wasn’t free not to eat.

I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean "not responsible for receiving Christ?"



God did not force Adam to eat the fruit. Adam chose to eat the fruit because he believed he knew better than God what was good for him.

If in receiving Jesus God gets the credit, in eating the fruit who gets the credit?
How can you say God ordained Adam to fall and yet Adam chose to fall? Could Adam have not fallen even though he was ordained to fall? If not then God is responsible for the fall and can not condemn.
Why would God punish Adam for fulfilling Gods desire? He should reward him.

I think you're confusing the ordination of God with the idea that God forcibly controlls man's actions.

Tell me something arnold, do you believe that the Plan of God did not originally include the Fall and that it happened apart from God's control?

God bless

I would rather be an atheist then believe in such God.
By God being in control do you mean God has to make things happen?

Explain this quote:
“it's important to note that the ordination of the Fall of man, as with all things, was to bring glory upon the Lord; And it did.”
How does ordaining someone to rape an infant bring glory to God? How can you say he is the cause of such act?

How can a god that is not all loving be loving at all? If he only chose some to be saved then he does not love at all.
If he unconditionally elects why wouldn’t he elect all? If he chooses before we make choices why does he blame us for what we do?
What if your friend puts your infant in a swimming pool and tells him to swim, since he can’t he drowns. You come back to your friend, you want to choke him to death. He says I told him to swim I even commanded him to swim but he didn’t listen to me, he deserve to die.
What if that same friend have put someone else’s infant in the pool but he helped him not to drowned.Would you consider your friend loving?
The same way if God doesn’t save a person that can’t come on his own, he would be a cruel and hateful God wouldn’t you think?

 

[Blackhawk]

arnold777,

In one sense no God does not desire for us to sin but in another he does. That is since that he is sovereign that he ordained it to occur. Free choice and God sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. Part of being God is that he can be sovereign yet let us choose. We can choose to sin or not sin but yet His will is done. If God can't do this then he is not sovereign at all. We are thus partially sovereign then. But we are not and he is.

God desires us to be saved yet not all us will be because of man's sin. This is not something that God is not control over though. For he desired to create a universe where Adam would fall and not all would come to him. He knew that before hand and ordained it to occur.

You ask how can God blame the nonelect for having orginal sin whenthey had no choice over that. Well that is a difficult question. I think partially because we are not all individuals. We all share in the sins of eachother. I share in adam's sin and you share in mine. What we do affects everything else. That includes everyone else. So I think that since in one sense we aer all in communion that the consequence of Adam's sin affects us. I can't fully answer your question though. It is one of those hard questions.

One last thing however. You do not really get by it by rejecting unconditional atonement though. I can ask you why God allws some of us to live in such a place and in such an enviroment where he knows that we will reject Christ. Also why does he make some of us in such a way that we have less of an oppurtunity to receive Christ? Now especially if you put these two together why does God do that?

 

[Reformationist]

By free it would mean Adam could have not eaten. If he was ordained to eat then he wasn?t free not to eat.

That is purely illogical. Do you "freely" choose not to be able to jump 30 feet into the air? Of course not. "Free," in the biblical sense, does not mean free to make any choice. It means free to make any choice available to you. The problem is that we are limited in so many different ways that the whole idea of our will being "free" is incongruous. The reason Adam couldn't choose not to eat the fruit isn't because God either removed his natural ability to make the choice or because God forcibly made him eat the fruit. He couldn't choose not to eat the fruit because his greatest desire when presented with the temptation of eating the fruit was to actually eat the fruit.

As I said, God's divine act of ordaining something to come to pass doesn't make Him responsible for the creation making a particular choice. God is causal in all things that He ordains. Every Christian who has ever had conversations with athiests about God's plan will have heard the question, "If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil why did He put it where they could get to it in the first place?" Or, "if He was going to put it there why didn't He just make it lawful for them to partake of it?" The reason He put it there was because His plan always included the Fall of man. God did not force Adam and Eve to disobey Him. He did know, however, that when faced with the temptation of the serpent and the fruit, they would willingly forego the council of their Creator and partake of the unlawful fruit.

Think about all the things that had to come to pass for Jesus to be crucified. Herod could have decided that killing all the male children in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, was a bad thing, but he didn't. Was it because God made him want to do it? Of course not. Regardless of that, God's Will was being brought to fruition through the ungodliness of Herod. Think of Judas Iscariot. Did He become one of the original Twelve by coincidence? Of course not. This had to come to pass. God had ordained that it would come to pass and He ensured, by sovereignly and providentially providing every little thing necessary, that the Son of God would be brutally sacrificed on the Cross, to include Judas' appointment as one of the Apostles. There had to have been a betrayer. God saw to it that there was. God did not change Judas' nature. He just did not give him the grace to desire that this evilness not come to pass. Is it God's fault that Judas was evil and desired to serve his flesh? Of course not. God is under no obligation to make us better than we are. Was Judas "free" to choose otherwise? He was "free" in the sense that the choice to not betray Christ was a real option but he was not "free" in the sense that he, like all of us, are incapable of choosing contrary to his nature. We are not "free" to choose contrary to our nature. If a person is unregenerate then their nature is to serve their flesh. Everything they do, aside from reflex, is predicated by this desire. Nothing they do is in an effort to serve God in obedience.

So, Adam "freely" chose to disobey God but he was not free from his sinful desire to do so.

If in receiving Jesus God gets the credit, in eating the fruit who gets the credit?

It seems like you are trying to draw a parallel between the grace of salvation, which no one has ever earned, and the responsibility for sinning, which everyone does. God "gets the credit" for our salvation because it is the monergistic work of God that causes it to be manifested. Don't you see? Your salvation, if you are saved, is the product of a transaction between the Godhead. Jesus offered Himself to the Father to appease His righteous wrath against the sin of man. His death was acceptable to the Lord God and so Christ's propitiation was sufficient. The point is, the only manner in which you were involved is as a recipient of the benefits of Christ holy work on the Cross. As for Adam and Eve's sin, well, mankind is responsible because it was mankind, through Adam and Eve, that committed that sin.

How can you say God ordained Adam to fall and yet Adam chose to fall?

Because that's the Truth of the mercy and grace of God shown in His Word.

Could Adam have not fallen even though he was ordained to fall?

No, but not because God gave him no other option. Adam's, and thus mankind's, fall from grace was the product of Adam's sinful desire to usurp the power of God in the rulership of his life.

If not then God is responsible for the fall and can not condemn.

Um...okay. Be sure to let Him know you think that when you stand before Him on the day of your judgment.

Why would God punish Adam for fulfilling Gods desire? He should reward him.

God's desire was to bring glory to Himself. This was accomplished through the Fall of mankind and the subsequent redemption of a people He had set apart unto His Son. The mistake you're making is in assuming that God's plan was to bring glory to mankind.

I would rather be an atheist then believe in such God.

That level of arrogance astounds me every time I hear people utter such blasphemy. Are you actually saying that if God isn't contained in the box that you put Him in that He's not worthy of your worship? Just because you don't fully understand how God can ensure something comes to pass without being responsible for the actions that bring it to pass doesn't mean that it is not the Truth. I think that the problem you are having is with your misunderstandings of God's sovereign control, not the fact that God is sovereign.

By God being in control do you mean God has to make things happen?

God is first causal in all things. Either you must acknowledge that God is omnipotent and, therefore, could stop anything from coming to pass, to include those things He does not stop from coming to pass or you believe there are things outside of God's control. If it's the former then you must then acknowledge that if He does not stop something from coming to pass then, in some measure, it was His desire for it to come to pass. If it was His desire for it not to come to pass He would have just ensured that it didn't. If, however, you believe the latter, well, I guess I'd have to say that a God who can't control His own creation and ensure His own plan comes to pass isn't really God.

Explain this quote:
?it's important to note that the ordination of the Fall of man, as with all things, was to bring glory upon the Lord; And it did.? How does ordaining someone to rape an infant bring glory to God?

You are obviously too emotional to address this topic maturely but I will respond as best I can. Terrible events, like the one you mention, are terrible to us because of our finite perspective when viewing them. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that such an event would be tragic. However, and this is purely hypothetical, what if that same child were to grow up and be a person whom the Lord has providentially graced with the ability to comfort other rape victims. In fact, imagine how her testimony may help others and may even be the catalyst for their relationship with God. Is that event as tragic. It may still seem like a terrible thing for that person to have to endure but God does not view suffering as we do. As a matter of experience I know that I have considered it suffering when I didn't have enough money to buy a new monitor for my computer. Is that really suffering in comparison to a family who has so little money that each member must pick a day of the week that they want to eat on because the family can only afford to feed one of them one day a week? I think not. As terrible as many things are we cannot assume that we see the entirity of their effect on history. The death of a child is the means by which the Lord has brought many to know Him. Is that death so tragic if it leads people to embrace the Gospel? We may think it does, in a temporal, finite sense but how do you compare the pain of a young child's corporeal death with the joy of a person's eternal life in Christ?

How can you say he is the cause of such act?

First, He's not the One who committed the sin. Second, I'm not under the illusion, as you seem to be, that the virtue of something is limited to my perspective of it.

How can a god that is not all loving be loving at all?

He is all loving, to those whom He loves.

If he only chose some to be saved then he does not love at all.

Exactly Dr. Watson.

If he unconditionally elects why wouldn?t he elect all?

I could make my guesses but that's all they'd be. Would you like to hear them?

If he chooses before we make choices why does he blame us for what we do?

You do it, right? It's not like He's condemning you for sinning when you didn't sin. As for His choice, the thing that I want to stress upon you is that His choice ISN'T ABOUT YOU OR YOUR GLORY. It's about His glory.

What if your friend puts your infant in a swimming pool and tells him to swim, since he can?t he drowns. You come back to your friend, you want to choke him to death. He says I told him to swim I even commanded him to swim but he didn?t listen to me, he deserve to die.

Why do you keep bringing up infants? Did your child die? I certainly hope you have not had to endure such a thing. Either way, this is in no way a parallel to the Fall or the redemption of God's elect or His sovereign control over creation.

What if that same friend have put someone else?s infant in the pool but he helped him not to drowned.Would you consider your friend loving?

I would personally wonder why this person was putting infants into the pool.

The same way if God doesn?t save a person that can?t come on his own, he would be a cruel and hateful God wouldn?t you think?

Sure. If I thought about the Gospel from a man centered perspective.

First off, God was under no obligation to create any of us. So, our lives our the product of His majesty and grace. Secondly, we are His creation created for the purpose of bringing Him glory. Your story about the infant in the pool is irrelevent because we are capable of creating nothing. I'll give you an example. Let's say you build a wooden playset for your children. Then, because it pleases you, you burn it to the ground. Who has the right to question your authority to do with your creation as you see fit? Do I? Of course not.

The Gospel isn't about you. It's about Christ.

God bless

 

[FreeinChrist]

By free it would mean Adam could have not eaten. If he was ordained to eat then he wasn’t free not to eat.

Exactly! Check out the meaning of 'ordain':

1. 1. <LI type=a>To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
   2. To authorize as a rabbi.
2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained.

Rather than preordaining Adam to fall - meaning Adam had no choice for it was ordered by God and could not be altered - I believe God created mankind knowing man would fall and allowing it to happen.

One could carry that farthur in regards to crime. God does not order heinous acts against the innocent, ordering it to happen, but allows us to choose, thus allowing the criminal to act. As He allows Satan to work in this world now. I agree that in ordering a person to rape another, giving them no choice, takes the responsibility for the crime from the rapist and gives it to God. But, happily, God does not do that!

And allowing sin to occur, and allowing Satan to work in this world, does not negate the fact that God is in control.

 

[thinbo]

Hey reformationist, I posted quite a while back (got thoroughly rebuked) I could repeat what I posted and your refutations, i could post some counter refutations, but honestly we both have better things to do. (it's quite funny I did gibber quite a bit so I really deserved half of them)

My one rebuke to you would be in the form of a commendation, it seems you have it all sown up, in fact your theological understanding appears so sown up, it is almost without join. Is this a reasonable observation or have i misjudged you?

 

[Reformationist]

Rather than preordaining Adam to fall - meaning Adam had no choice for it was ordered by God and could not be altered - I believe God created mankind knowing man would fall and allowing it to happen.

FreeinChrist, this is purely semantics. Think about what you're saying in light of God.

Answer, if you will, these questions:

• 1. Is God omnipotent?
  
  2. Does being omnipotent mean that He could stop any particular thing from happening, without exception?
  
  3. Why wouldn't God stop something from happening that He can stop from happening?

One could carry that farthur in regards to crime. God does not order heinous acts against the innocent, ordering it to happen, but allows us to choose, thus allowing the criminal to act. As He allows Satan to work in this world now. I agree that in ordering a person to rape another, giving them no choice, takes the responsibility for the crime from the rapist and gives it to God. But, happily, God does not do that!

Once again, let me reiterate that I am not, in any way, advocating or purporting a view of God that professes that He divinely forces anyone to do anything. However, we cannot escape the fact of God's nature that He is not only omniscient, having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight, He is also omnipotent, having unlimited authority or influence. With an understanding of His power comes a greater understanding of our dependence on Him. If we can acknowledge that God chooses, for whatever reason, to allow a heinous event to come to pass, while also acknowledging that He could have stopped it if He so willed, we are left with the only understanding available regarding God's role in the events of life, i.e., it was, in some way, His plan for that to come to pass. Now, we will rarely, if ever, fully understand why God "allows" many things to come to pass. We can, however, take comfort in His promise:

Romans 8:28
And we know that ALL THINGS work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Even those things that we experience that we find difficult to even discuss, much less endure, work to our good and the good of our brethren. We may not understand how but that does not supercede the omnipotence of God and His ability to ensure that, in fact, all things do work to our good. It is through these experiences of life, both good and bad, that we are conformed into the image of Christ. As bad as these tragic events are, if we trust that God is greater than them, we can be assured that they will be to our benefit. Think of how many people are able to offer comfort and consolation to those who have lost children because they, too, have lost a child. Was it a good thing that either of them lost a child? Of course not. Does that mean it doesn't work to their benefit to be equipped to comfort another who is grieving?

So, with the traits of God at the forefront of our mind when dealing with life we must realize that, while difficult to endure, tragic events are most certainly part of God's plan for our sanctification. Should we rejoice in the bearing of bad circumstances? James says we should:

James 1:2-4
My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

Is being made "perfect and complete, lacking nothing" a good thing? Of course. Is it any less of a good thing because it was brought about through a trial in our lives? Who knows better what will accomplish our being sanctified, us or the Sanctifier, God Himself? I think we all know that it is God. So, in light of that, we must seek to look at the events in our lives as stepping stones by which God teaches us to "trust in the Lord with all our heart, and lean not on our own understanding; In all our ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct our paths" (Prov. 3:4-6).

And allowing sin to occur, and allowing Satan to work in this world, does not negate the fact that God is in control.

I agree. It actually emphasizes it. But, in recognition of God's sovereign control over even the prince of the power of the air we must also understand that God's allowance of an event that He is capable of stopping shows clearly that His plan was for it to come to pass. Look at the story of Job. It was only by the permission of God that satan was allowed to afflict Job. Did God make satan afflict Job? Of course not. Was it God's plan that Job be afflicted? Absolutely. To what end? As in all things, to bring glory to God.

God bless