Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
nobdysfool's profile: I respect the right of others to disagree with me, and ask only that you state your case in an honest and thoughtful way, and not resort to personal attacks, or argument just to argue.
One of these things is not like the other...
If God wills something, shall it not come to pass?
So, it's God's will that you sin?
And exactly when have you stated your case in a thoughtful, honest way? Your whole style has been to argue just to argue, dropping bombs, and I have yet to see you present your belief with the reasons why you believe that way (and by that I don't mean "because I used to be in a Calvinist church, and left because I saw abuses". That's not a reason, that's a reaction). Defend your belief with scripture, and logical reasoning. That's what we have been doing.
Is it His Will that YOU sin?
I'm sorry if my attempt to better understand your theology is offensive to you.
At last, an answer! You do not offend me, but I am baffled by the fact that all you do is nit-pick at stuff, in the hopes of tripping someone up. That's the only reason I can see why you do that. It is not debate. It is not a sharing of ideas. As much as you want to understand my theology, I would like to understand why you believe as you do. We can't do that unless we are both engaged in debate over issues, instead of dealing with little booby-trap bombs lobbed in to derail the discussion.
As for your question, God does not will that I sin in the sense that He commands me to sin. Is the fact that I do sin taken into account in His Design? Yes. But the responsibility for my sin is mine, not His.
To the contrary, it is the elements of Calvinism that I stumble over, because they don't fit. That's why I question them.
Take a look around, of the Christians around here, the Calvinists have the strongest (and most prolific) contingency. They say I don't understand Calvinism, when I think I do.
Then they get offended when their explanations don't convince me.
That is no longer true:>)
Corin I think that you understand Calvinism as far as you choose to..and that is fine with me..
I say I have free will..and you say no you believe that it is all predestined ..and I say that is correct..it is predestined..But that does not mean that I have not chosen what was predestined..
All of our choices are limited by the will of God..You can not will that which is against the natural laws God put in place for the earth ..you do not have a problem with that ..but whne God is personal you kick against the goad
Re-read what I said... of the Christians around here...
but when God is personal you kick against the goad...
To the contrary Rn, it is the fact that God is personal that I cannot understand your concept of Him.
I think you better check with Calvin on that, since he stated that God did want all men to be saved.
The reason why they are not, (according to Calvin) was a secret will, not revealed in Scripture.
Spurgeon said the same thing in 1Tim.2:4.
So, if Scripture states that it is God's will that you do not sin, why do you?
We acknoweldge that nothing can happen unless God lets it happen, but not everything happening is happening because God desires it, rather they are happening despite what God desires.
Yet, because God has given man some choices to make, that free will is allowed to operate, even to the rejection of God's own desires.
God knows what those choices will be, so He is in complete control of history, but nevertheless, the rejection by man of God's desires are real.
Must be one of those secret will deals
And what does this 'Pas' mean in Rom.3:23?
Is it 'all sorts' in that case also?
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam.
Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
And, to argue that mere man could resist God's will is a straw man argument.
Not if it is God who allows it.
Oh, God will let you sin, but even that is within His Plan, and will result in no good to you.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that.
This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Since Adam fell, man has had the exact opposite problem: He cannot DO what God commands!
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall?
Was that not God's will for him?
What is that command? Repent, and believe the Gospel, and you shall be saved.
True.
As for God's Will, nothing happens that God has not already known about, and incorporated into His Plan.
True.
He isn't waiting to see IF you will do any certain thing, He already knows with absolute certainty that you will do everything that you have done, are doing, and will do, clear to the end of time and beyond.
True.
And He knows that with a certainty that you can't even begin to fathom.
True.
That is not the issue, the issue or question is why are things happening that God clearly states He does not want, but nevertheless are still happening.
Wesley believed God controled history as did Arminius.
Some Arminians have gone off track with the view of 'open theology' in an attempt to defend free will.
However, one can understand God's understanding of free will as being factored in, God knowing all the possiblities and what decisions would be made for or against him, and still be in complete control of human history with man having real choices to make.
For a discussion on the different views you might want to get a book on the Divine Foreknowledge, four views, edit. James K.Beilby and Paul Eddy .
You want man's will, his so-called ability to choose (from a morally neutral position, which is patently false), to be the one thing that God must yield to, the one thing that He cannot override without being "unfair". You don't understand God's Soveriegnty, His Omnipotence, or His Omniscience. If you did, you wouldn't argue for such a stupid thing!
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
No because in this case Paul is obviously talking about "all" in an individual sense, and the context bears this out. In 2Peter3, Peter is talking about "all" in a collective sense, which carries the meaning of "all sorts". The King James translators got it wrong, because they inserted their own theology into the translation. Words mean things, and context helps to establish precise meaning. Unfortunately, English doesn't always have the precise word to translate the idea without resorting to a phrase, which the translators sometimes don't (or won't) do.
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam. Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
In1 Timothy 2:4, the sense is obviously collective, therefore the "all sorts" sense is correct. In Romans 5:18, The same word is used in both parts of the verse, that is true. But, in a situation like this, you must also compare scripture with scripture to see whether "all" in both halves of the verse are in the same sense, or are to be understood in the same way. When that is done, it can be seen that the preponderance of scripture indicates that only "some" will actually be saved. The free gift is sufficient for all, but only efficacious for those whom God has chosen, which is part and parcel of the doctrine of salvation and election. That is why it is dangerous to build a doctrinal position from one, two, or three verses, and ignoring the whole of scripture regarding said doctrine. Even Spurgeon and Calvin could be wrong, sometimes.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that. This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Let's define Will, shall we? Because I think you're using some terms interchangeably with Will as it refers to God, trying to find leverage for your unscriptural view. Let's start by asking some questions. Does God command people to sin? No! That would be a Directive, wouldn't it? Now, Does God permit sin to exist? Obviously yes, so we have a situation where God permits something to exist, while not commanding anyone to actually do it. You want to call that God's Permissive Will. Sin is not something God created, it is something that his creation brought about by disobedience to the Directive Will of God. It is an aberration in the creation that He allows to exist. Therefore, God is not the creator (author) of sin, but He can use it as a tool to direct the affairs of men and angels, simply by the fact that He, being God, knows what choices his creatures will make, and directing events in such a way that His purpose is accomplished while at the same time not actively causing or directing the individual decisions that lead to those events. It's simple cause and effect. He knows what action will trigger what reaction, and can bring people and events together in such a way that everyne freely chooses what they will do, and God's purpose is fulfilled. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall? Was that not God's will for him?
It happened within the framework of God's Will. Did God CAUSE Adam to fall? NO! Adam fell, and paid the price for his disobedience. Nothing happens that is outside of the Will of God, but that does not mean that God actively caused it to happen.
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
I do not say that. You mischaracterize what I have said. God uses those things (sin and death) FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. In that way, He brings Glory to Himself out of that which He hates. You argue for an ideal that is obviously not possible here and now. There will be a day when those things will not exist. They will cease to exist when they have served their usefulness in God's Plan. Do you not believe this? I think that's the thing you have a problem with. You can't see how God can use sin and death to bring Glory to Himself, so you try to explain it away by other means.
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
Not entirely true. God said that Joseph's brothers meant their actions for evil against Joseph, but God meant their actions for good to Joseph. So which is it? Man may mean evil, but God may use man's evil deeds to bring about good.
He thinks he does better than you or I do...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.