Featured Does God have a detailed plan for our individual lives?

Whatever the Lord purposes and wills to do, He does.

 

The Lord softens the hearts and draws His sheep to Himself with loving kindness

The ones of His choosing = the elect. The Lord does not choose each and every individual who has and shall live.

This certainly doesn't follow. Since the Lord has chosen a remnant --not everyone en masse. Only His possession will be saved --the ones He knows--not the goats.

 

I reserve the right to disagree.

Now please discuss my response from Luke 7:30, which I believe is very clear.

 

Yet another obfuscation, did anyone say God had planned to save everyone? What was said is God desires that everyone be saved, therefore His will is not to compel salvation. Thus the sect that puts that nonsense out is mistaken. Exhaustive determinism is mistaken doctrine. No amount of subject change will alter that truth.

 

Yes, scripture is clear God does delegate authority, but it is equally as clear nobody comes into authority, but by God's will, appointment, and predestination thereof. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1). J

Yes, as seen by, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1). Also, look at the king of Assyria as an example whom God used to punish the Jews, then God turned around and punished the king for doing such because the king took credit for it. "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets." (Isaiah 10:5-6). Then God turns around and punishes the wicked king because he believes he accomplished the act, "12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man: (Isaiah 10:12-13) and "15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." (Isaiah 10:15). Here we see God uses even the wicked rulers that He puts into power to accomplish His purposes. Consider this, "deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:" (Psalm 17:13). Who controls the wicked who are God's sword? God. This gives me great peace.

 

Brother Rob,

Here is 1 Samuel 15:35 in the King James, "...and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel." Repentance when the word applies to God cannot and does not mean in the same sense that it does to man for in the same chapter only a few verses later we read an important verse you left out, "29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29) and also, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19). So when we are told "the Lord repented that he made Saul king over Israel.", this he did, simply by later deposing him from the throne, and supplying the throne with a better man. Repentance when applied to God does not intend a sorrow for what he had done, a conviction of having done wrong, or even a change in his mind or purpose; but, as I understand, it signifies a change of his outward administration in his dispensations, and all in perfect harmony with his eternal and immutable purpose.

Rob, if we took your interpretation of 1 Samuel 15:35 we would have a God who is like a human who does something by mistake and then regrets it, God forbid!

 

Hi Brother Rob,

I certainly do not want to come off as arrogant, and if you are referring to me, I apologize if I came across as such! I do believe God predestinated all things and I think not only does scripture dictate this, but logic. I have never received a satisfactory answer yet regarding the following questions by those who oppose the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things. Is God's will the first cause of all causes, if He and His will is not the first cause of all causes, who is? Further, if it is concluded God is the first cause of all causes and he also foreknows everything that comes to pass since He is God, how can it be said He did not predestinate all events as all subsequent secondary causes would be a result of God's will which is the first cause and he knew all the subsequent effects his first cause would produce?

 

If it was always God's will that the fall never occur and for man to remain in the garden forever, why in Genesis 1:28 before the fall do we read, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."? From this verse it will be seen instead of God meaning for them to remain in the garden, He meant for them to fill up and inhabit the entire earth. To this I will add the 29th verse, " 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." In the first place, we see from this, that man was intended to inhabit the entire earth, from the fact that the fruits that grow on all the face of the earth were to be meat, or food, for him. And in the second place, we see that the fruit of every tree on earth that bore seed was to me to them for meat.

Next I will call your attention to Acts 17:24-26, "24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." It is clearly seen from this as well as from Genesis that God's purpose was (not that man should remain in the garden, but) that he should dwell on all the face of the earth.

 

Though I can understand why you feel Luke 7:30 speaks of some sort of thwarting of God’s plan, the word “counsel, plan” speaks of God’s will. Though I won’t draw it out, there are 3 sense of God’s will. His decretive (secret) will, His preceptive (revealed) will, and His dispositional (desire) will. This is why the Bible can speak of God’s will (decretive) always being accomplished will saying that God wills (desires) that all be saved while stating that all won’t be saved. In Luke 7:30, God’s decretive will is not in view since that can not be thwarted. It must be that either God’s preceptive will (since He calls all to faith in Christ) or His dispositional will (since He desires that all come to Christ) is what’s being despised.

It is at this point that I make a clarification on previous posts in this thread. When I say God’s will can not be thwarted, I’m of course referring to His decretive (what He has decreed to happen) will. However, God’s will in the preceptive sense (His Law and commands), can and is often ‘thwarted’. Of course Job is referring to God’s decretive will in chapter 42 since, as I just said, God’s preceptive will can and is often ‘thwarted’.

For more on the different meanings of God’s will you can check out Louis Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology” and Herman Bavinck’s “The Doctrine of God”.

 

Brother Rob,

As I have said multiple times to others (not yourself) on this board, no rational human being would create a machine knowing in advance the way in which he will make the machine that it would break down and not work as he wanted it, but yet isn't that what those who do not believe God predestinated the fall of Adam believe that God almighty would do? We both agree God at least foreknew everything and also that he made Adam, now if it was God's will that Adam never sin, then why did He make him the way He made him knowing it would cause all manner of sin to enter into the world that He did not want and also cost Him the death of His only Son? This would be a mentally deranged God at best and I don't even know at worst what it would make Him. It does not sound like God to me, that I know!

 

Life with God, this is a good thread topic you have started, especially it is only your first thread topic you created, I hope you stick around the board for awhile!

 

Yes we should mind our conduct since even though God has ordained everything we do we are still responsible. We in fact do choose according to our wills, but our will's choosing is according to God's will. That means are motives have a lot to with our moral responsibility. John Frame once gave us a good example. In courts today, it's not about actions that were free in a libertarian sense that makes us guilty but our motives.

 

You have a problem. The Greek word in Luke 7:30 which you are saying is not decretive is boule. The exact same word is used in Acts 2:23 for Christ "being delivered by the determinate counsel (boule) and foreknowledge of God." So according to your logic, Christ's death would then not be decretive.

For Berkhov putting Acts 2:23 in the decretive will of God, see p. 79.

 

I'm not denying the meaning of boule. But words like boule, thelema, and prothesis refer to God’s will in EITHER a decretive, preceptive, or dispositional sense.

 

I'm a linguist, not a theologian (though I teach one theology class and have taken a bunch of systematic theology classes). So approaching the text this way, to me smacks of having presuppositions about the text. I'd rather just take what the text says, and in Luke it says that God had a plan and the Pharisees rejected it. And that goes right along with the OP.

God has a plan for each person, but He does not force us to follow his particular plan for us. Thus, to make it practical, I've known many who were called to be missionaries but rejected that plan of God and lived their own lives, always regretting their decision somewhere down the road.

 

John Gill's commentary on Luke 7:30 regarding the "counsel of God" being rejected, he writes, "that is, they "rejected the command of God unto them", as the Arabic version renders it: for by "the counsel of God" here, is not meant his purpose, intention, and design, with respect to these persons, which was not, nor never is frustrated; but the precept of God, and so the Ethiopic version renders it," http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-7-30.html

 

Well how convenient for your theology, that.

 

I'm viewing the context of Scripture. If in Luke 7:30 it says that the Pharisees thwarted the plan of God yet Psalms 33:11, Prov. 19:21, Isaiah 14:24, and Hebrews 6:17 says God's plan will always stand, one then has to approach the text this way.

 

It's convenient because "my" theology happens to be what the Bible teaches.