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

AMEN

 

Well, I didn't really make an interpretation, only an observation.
Twice in 1 Sam 15 we are told that God repented, once that he doesn't repent like a man.
Obviously something is being said that is important enough that the author introduced an obvious intentional contradition.
My interpretation is that the first and third times the word is used it means something different from the center of the passage.
It's related to Genesis 6:6 where we are also told 'God repented'.
Each time it is paired with the word, grieve.
So this passage uses the word, repent/regret in two different ways to make a point.

(1) a sense of sorrow and grief (vss 11 and 35)
(2) the idea of God's immutability (vs 29).
​

Rob

 

I don't think there is a problem here. As you say, Christ's death is according to the determinate counsel (horismene boule ) of God. I know I don't need to tell you this, but I mention it for the benefit of those brothers who don't know any Greek. Horizo (from which comes horismene) means ''to define,' 'to mark out boundaries,' 'to determine,' 'to appoint.' It is the adjective that determines the precise meaning of the noun. In Luke 7:30, boule has no such qualifier.

[My knowledge of Greek is by no means to be compared with yours, so I am quite prepared to be shot down in flames]

God does not desire the death of any sinner (Ezek. 18:23), yet it is evident that He has not saved all of them. He has sovereignly left some men to their just condemnation, whilst others, equally guilty, He has sovereignly saved, to the praise of His glorious grace.

 

Perhaps a quote from A.W. Pink may be helpful. From The Attributes of God: The Immutability of God.

Thirdly, God is immutable in His counsel. Perhaps some are ready to object that we ought to read the following: "And it repented the Lord that He had made man" (Gen. 6:6). Our first reply is, Then do the Scriptures contradict themselves? No, that cannot be. Num. 23:19 is plain enough: "God is not a man that He should lie; neither the son of man that He should repent." So also in 1 Sam. 15:29..............
The explanation is very simple. When speaking of Himself, God frequently accommodates His language to our limited capacities. He describes Himself as clothed with bodily members, as eyes, ears, hands etc. He speaks of Himself as "waking" (Psalm 78:65), as "rising early" (Jer. 7:13); yet He neither sleeps nor slumbers. When He institutes a change in His dealings with men, He describes His course of conduct as "repenting."

The Immutability of God is one of His most important attributes. 'For I am the LORD, I do not change. Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob' (Mal. 3:6). 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8).

 

Sorry, one cannot change the meaning of a word that easily. The word in Greek for "command" is entole, but boule means "counsel" or "plan." Gill is wrong.

 

Please don't turn this into a Cal/Arm thread. I was not trying to go that way, but simply exegete the passage and answer the OP. Anytime you bring Pink in, it becomes Arm/Cal.

I have to go home, where we do not have Internet access. See everyone Monday.

 

That was a strange yet humorous remark. You really are unfamiliar with A.W.P's body of work.

 

Why is it whenever a Calvinist is quoted the alarms go off, and the thread is in an 'Oh no, this is going cal/arm!!!!!' state of hysteria? Yet when Olson or some other anti-cal, or Arminian is quoted, or brought into the conversation, the Calvinists (so-called) sit back, relax and then dismantle their theological position, no questions asked, no state of panic?

Rather odd, isn't it?

 

.

Brother John,

I believe by reading Gill's commentary he is appealing to other manuscripts in his commentary, not trying to redefine words as you assert above for Gill mentions how the "Arabic version renders it" and "Ethiopic version renders it". Here again is what he wrote , "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

 

If anyone has any time and enjoys studying, I suggest reading the following book that is available free online- It is titled "Predestination by Jonas C Sikes) It is the best book I have ever read to prove the absolute predestination of all things and I believe it is irrefutable. Here is the link http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Pdf/Jonas_C._Sikes_1900.pdf

Also, here is a debate representing both sides of the issue on the topic of doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things as it pertains to the sins of men that is a very interesting read (by no means a sleeper)-
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=3F2BD1A1ED70F51!488&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AHNLNqpXVrpHcNY

I do not think I will have much time after tomorrow to continue this discussion as Lord willing I will be going out of state for the Thanksgiving week to visit family. I hope all the posters have a great holiday. Also thank you to the poster for creating this thread topic, it has created good discussion of the topic from scripture with both sides represented.


Brother Joe

 

Life with God,

The verse you are mentioning above is Psalm 37:23 and indeed the KJV renders it, "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in his way." Something to keep in mind is that the King James Version takes a much more literal interpretation of the Hebrew than does the NIV. Also, the Hebrew word used for "ordered" is the word "kun" which per Strong's Concordance the definition means "established", thus I would tend to go toward the KJV rendering.. Here is the definition of the word if you want to check it out- http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3559.htm

God does not have to make us sin, we inherited an evil flesh from our father Adam that gives us the inclination to sin, unless God restrains us by working through us with His Holy Spirit. No one I know that believes in the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things teaches God makes us sin. It is a straw man argument often put up by those on the other side who oppose the doctrine to frame those who believe in it in a false light.

Paul, after he has been born again, summed up this struggle with his sinful flesh nature and the Spirit of God within him in Romans 7, "
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
8 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.9 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:14-25).

It is important to note, the mind that Paul states he serves God with in the last verse of Romans 7:25 is not our fleshly mind because Paul wrote in the next chapter, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.(Romans 8:7). The mind we serve God with is the mind of Christ that is given to every child of God at the new birth, "16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16) God also says elsewhere it is Him who wills and does the good works in us, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13)

Now as to your question of if God predestinating all things will lead us to not care how we live or motivate us to go ahead and sin, I would argue it does the latter for a true child of God. God promises in my favorite verse of the whole Bible, "28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28). Such a promise to me is not a license to sin, but a motive to serve Him! If for example our earthly fleshly father told us he will do everything in his power to have everything we do in life turn out for our betterment, that would just make me love my dad more and want to obey him, so how much more if God who can make good on this promise were to promise this to His children!

Nobody I know who truly believes in the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things concludes , "now it doesn't matter what I do or I can sin all I want", they don't conclude that because God has given them a new heart! Finally, I would point out, this same charge was bought up to Paul when he taught doctrine of forgiveness by Christ's grace and atonement would motivate people to sin, what does Paul say in response? "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:1-3)ndeed I find it interesting that the same charge that people believe the doctrine of forgiveness by grace would lead people to sin is also the same charge that people use to fight against the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things by God.

Again Paul writes, "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid" (Romans 6:15). Indeed, those with such a mindset do not understand the doctrine of God's predestination of all things. Is it not a form of being "under grace" if it is true that God works "all things together for good" for his children? Last I checked grace is unmerited favor, thus if God is working even our sin to our good, this would qualify as grace.

This will be my last post on this thread. I am leaving for Thanksgiving and will not be back on the forum until the Monday after next. I have enjoyed this discussion and hope the Lord blesses you in your desire and search for truth. Test every doctrine by the Bible "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

God bless,

Brother Joe

[

 

God uses secondary causes and means to accomplish His will, for example he uses the means of the gospel and the Bible to exhort , instruct, and comfort His children. Ultimate however, scripture teaches us all spiritual blessings were given to his elect before the earth was formed in Christ in heavently places "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:" (Ephesians 1:3). Christians should live and behave Godly because they have been blessed not to "get blessed". Blessings, unlike rewards, are given and not merited or earned. If one behaved well only to get he would be no different than an unregenerate. Grace is a lot stronger of a motive for good behavior than is the law and rewards (although I am sure an Arminian would tell you otherwise LOL).

 

Does God have a detailed plan for our lives? Yes. Does God bring about His plan by compulsion? No
First, we operate within the bounds God allows.
Second, God can allow us to shape our future, or close our opportunity with death, or with His hardening of our heart.
Third, we can close our opportunity by the practice of sin such that we harden our own hearts.
Fourth, scripture teaches most people are able to seek God and trust in Christ. Otherwise Jesus would not have needed to speak in parables and God would not have needed to harden hearts, Romans 11. Thus total spiritual inability of all people at all times is unbiblical.
Fifth, God has not predestined all our choices, He sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life.
Sixth, if God credits our faith as righteousness, He puts us "in Christ" and thus we are saved forever.

 

Your "Bible" must resemble Thomas Jefferson's. There are many holes in the Van-Tran.

The doctrine of man's spiritual inablity and depravity are all over God's Word.

Just take some Baby Steps and you will see. Start off with 1 Cor. 2:14:
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.(NIV)

 

Look back. I did not object to Berkhov, but even referred to his position, and I've quoted from Strong, Packer and other Calvinists here on the BB. Nor did I object to Gill being quoted, but merely disagreed with him.

On the other hand, Pink was not just a Calvinist but a crusading Calvinist who wrote and acted to make others Calvinist, not just to do theology. That's one reason I object to him. There are others.

 

Sounds like a BJU saying when the purge was on.

As I said before, you obviously are not at all familiar with his body of work. In the words of Iain H. Murray,
who wrote a definitive biography of the man (and updated a few years ago):
"Familiar with the whole range of revelation, Pink was rarely sidetracked from the great themes of Scripture:grace, justification, and sanctification. Our generation owes him a great debt for the enduring light he has shed, by God's grace, on the Truth of the Holy Bible."

A.W. P. has a lot more in common with C.H.S. than you realize. Charles Spurgeon's theology has little interface with say John R.Rice, for instance. ;-)

AWP did not wax on about "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers."

He didn't delve into a Joel Osteen-like book such as :"Success-Prone Christians :How To Succeed in Everything!"

No, Arthur W. Pink was engaged in weighter matters for the enrichment of Christians. And his materials are eagerly sought after -- more than six decades since he went to Glory.

 

Thanks for replying, Brother Joseph.

What Gill was referring to was not other manuscripts (mss), but ancient translations. So I'm not objecting to other mss but to the translations he refers to. While Gill was quite a scholar in his day, we now have so much more information about the meaning of Greek words nowadays due to the discoveries of papyri beginning in the early 20th century, that Gill is not considered in these days to be an authority of any kind on the original languages of the Bible.

 

Here is yet another obvious example of adding to scripture! What it actually says, "the things that come from the Spirit of God" and what the advocates of the mistaken doctrine say it says "all the things that come from the spirit of God." If you read the passage, the actual message refers to the fact those not indwelt are unable to understand spiritual meat, but they can understand spiritual milk. Just read 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3.

There is no actual support anywhere in scripture for the total spiritual inability of all the fallen all the time.

God's plan for our lives is new every morning, but it is not a plan of compulsion, that is mistaken doctrine.