Does God always get what he ultimately wants?

[kyredneck]

....O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not!

FWIW, 'God the Son' is speaking from the standpoint of 'centuries' of dealing with Jerusalem, not just those three years of His earthly mission, just as 'God the Spirit' was speaking through Stephen in Acts 7.

 

[humblethinker]

And I've answered this explanation by asking you how it is that something (the evil intent of a creature) comes from nothing? Saying that evil comes from the absence of good is like saying something is formed from nothing, and we both know only one person has the ability to create something from nothing...yet you deny that God originated evil, so who else is left?

This is where, in the past, you appeal to mystery, which is fine, but do so consistently instead of sometimes making statements such as "God does the deed but its not evil because he did it with a good motive." Because if that is true then why the need to appeal to mystery on the former question? Why not just say God originated the creatures evil intent, but He had a good motive so it wasn't evil? You are not consistent.

Either say, "I don't know, its a mystery." OR say "God does it ALL, but its not ever evil because He has a right motive." But why do you say both at different times when pressed on the same issue? Can you stop calling me a liar long enough to explain that?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

Satan ruled under God doing God's will- yet doing it with an evil heart.

Again...

One CANNOT actually atribute to god as being the direct cause/forcing determining that Nazi tried to exterminate Jews, Stalin and Mao killing their Millions...
That IS Satanic, and God permitting all of that, and he wa/is at work redeeming goodness out of all that evil, but he is NOT doing all of that directly, and He knows that one day he WILL direct rule on Earth, his Kingdom will indeed come, burt NOT in its fulness until Second Coming of jesus Christ!

 

[JesusFan]

No it's cowardly deflection.

The issue is not about how God FEELS when people go to hell.

The issue is that God WILLS that they do.

You agree as you OUGHT to, since you actually have a theology, that God willed in eternity past for a vast number to perish in hell.

You see it such that it was never God's will to save everyone but ONLY to make a WAY for everyone to be saved.

You still see God intending forever in eternity past for multitudes to perish to serve his holy purposes.

But what you dread is that these who you hope to subvert who have no theology will see that you agree with Calvinists on the issue (all except for that "only making a way" part- that is not Calvinism of course- we believe in Substitutionary Atonement).

But the fact is that this is WHY systematization of theology is necessary. It forces you to be consistent.

That's why these people who have no systematic theology can say God is sovereign over all at all times and at the same time HORRIBLY failing in his eternal purposes.

It is utterly ridiculous.

They do not deny as you do Substitutionary Atonement. No. No. They affirm this view as do Calvinists. But you are smarter than that as were all the classical Arminians. You know that that means that God is failing miserably if most folks are not getting saved. You know that that is inconsistent so you deny Substitutionary Atonement.

And KUDOS for doing so!

Your position is much more consistent than those that you want to pull to your side who have no theology.

It is horribly wrong, but it is relatively consistent.



Frankly, I don't yield the premise.

But even if I did I would consider it meaningless.

I am weak in eschatology (not illiterate mind you- but it is by no means one of my strengths).

Yet I have received great marks in my eschatology classes. Anybody can research some aspects and be very weak on the whole.

You are VERY weak on your understanding of Calvinistic theodicy- very weak as I have proven time and time again with the Westminster Confession, Calvin himself, Edwards, Piper- and the list goes on and on.

God has directly determined the state of those whom will be the saved by His grace. the ELECT of God..

Those whom are NOT found to be saved by god in Jesus Christ will be going to hell, and the Lord HAS determined that all those who are NOT found to be inChrist will go there as punishment for sins

BUT God does not cause/force the sinners into hell, he permits/a;;ows them to go there based on their choices made...

God directs/determines his redeemed, decreed what willbe the end of the lost, is NOT though Allah, directly causing them to go there

NOT beliver of Double predestination being found in Bible!

 

[Skandelon]

No it's cowardly deflection.

Please refrain from personally demeaning comments. It is not necessary in a conversation with a fellow brother to call him a coward and a liar.

The issue is not about how God FEELS when people go to hell.

I never said it was. I merely explained that the phraseology you chose can be taken to mean many different things, while my phraseology leaves no room for misunderstanding. Saying "God wills that people go to hell," is not a clear intent, while saying "God permits people to go to hell, but doesn't take pleasure in that," is very clear.

You agree as you OUGHT to, since you actually have a theology, that God willed in eternity past for a vast number to perish in hell.

Once again, your phrasing carries much ambiguity. I'd say, "God permitted for a vast number to perish in hell, but did not take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked." Those two phrases may mean the same thing to the author, but they are not both clear to the readers. I believe this is a common error you have made in our discussions.

Your position is much more consistent than those that you want to pull to your side who have no theology.

I doubt they disagree with me as much as you think they do. As explained above, I think your choice of words is less than clear than it could be leading to much confusion.

I am weak in eschatology (not illiterate mind you- but it is by no means one of my strengths).

Yet, that doesn't mean you wouldn't have the cognitive ability to understand and correctly represent a view if it was presented. In the same manner, I am capable to hear and understand your view despite your endless and baseless charges to the contrary.

I KNOW you don't believe "God does EVIL," which is why I have included the statement "but God when God does 'IT' it is not called 'evil,' because he does it with a pure motive."

Luke, 'IT' represents the subject at hand, which is and was 'EVIL.' (the word in the brackets). You say Satan does IT and God does IT. The qualifier is that IT is not evil when God does IT, but is when someone else does IT. We all understand IT, but now we are moving on to try and discover why you appeal to mystery regarding the origin of IT on the one hand, but on the other say IT isn't EVIL when God does IT.

And by explaining that evil is NOT something- it is NOTHING.
Nothing CAN come from nothing.

Nothing can come from nothing? Really?
Dahmer's intent to eat, molest and kill is "NOTHING?" Really?
Satan's intent to "become like God," is "NOTHING?" Really?

You mean it doesn't exist? Please expound.

Can you point me to a scholar who teaches these things? I listened to the video and I never heard these things being taught.

 

[Winman]

Luke said:

That's why these people who have no systematic theology can say God is sovereign over all at all times and at the same time HORRIBLY failing in his eternal purposes.

God hasn't failed, men have. If a man refuses to submit to God and trust in Jesus, the man has failed, not God. God has provided that man everything he needs to be saved. He does not require of men what they cannot do, but simply that they trust or depend upon Jesus to save them.

Heb 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

What do the scriptures say? Do they say God fails? No. They say man fails.

 

[quantumfaith]

Would someone please let me know what the "acceptable" "Systems of Theology are around here. I have been continually getting the picture if I don't have one of the pre approved "systems" then I am just "ridiculous" foolish, ignorant and uneducated. I REALLY don't like feeling this way.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Would someone please let me know what the "acceptable" "Systems of Theology are around here. I have been continually getting the picture if I don't have one of the pre approved "systems" then I am just "ridiculous" foolish, ignorant and uneducated. I REALLY don't like feeling this way.

Thats cause your rediculously foolish, ignorant & an uneducated "Redneck" (errr....I mean yokel) ! LOL (Just being a smart alec) :thumbs::laugh:

Who loves ya baby!:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Thats cause your rediculously foolish, ignorant & an uneducated "Redneck" (errr....I mean yokel) ! LOL (Just being a smart alec) :thumbs::laugh:

Who loves ya baby!:thumbs:

I will have you know, not all of us in Alabama marry our cousins and live in trailers, but we do eat grits.

 

[preacher4truth]

Luke said:



God hasn't failed, men have. If a man refuses to submit to God and trust in Jesus, the man has failed, not God. God has provided that man everything he needs to be saved. He does not require of men what they cannot do, but simply that they trust or depend upon Jesus to save them.

Heb 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

What do the scriptures say? Do they say God fails? No. They say man fails.

Luke said people attribute failure to God, not that the Scriptures say this. You seem to often be fighting against the wrong argument. I see this quite often in your responses.

 

[JesusFan]

Would someone please let me know what the "acceptable" "Systems of Theology are around here. I have been continually getting the picture if I don't have one of the pre approved "systems" then I am just "ridiculous" foolish, ignorant and uneducated. I REALLY don't like feeling this way.

Surprised that no one sat you down at conversion and have you take the "purely Baptist Theology" quiz!

basically, it depends which Moderator addresses your post!

(just kidding!)

 

[Luke2427]

[SIZE=+0]Hello Luke,
when ever I see someone who has a passion about a subject I always tend to seek to listen to them with even greater intent as to what they are trying to get across so as to weigh it against my own belief to see if I have misunderstood the matter or to gain greater support for what I hold and I have done so in this case. I come away with this.
In using your theology and what you hold as the understanding of God's sovereignty it is that everything happens because God in His sovereign will and control ordains it down the even the most finite detail of all eternity which includes even a hiccup.

Yes, this is Calvinism.

The Westminster Confession says this very thing.
The London Baptist Confession affirms this very thing as well.

Spurgeon said it EXQUISITELY (as he is known to do):

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.

Please correct me if I am wrong in that. On the same token if we are to be consistent with your belief in this matter, my theology on this matter which is different then yours and which you feel is no theology has to be God ordained because of His will using your understanding of how God works and to keep Him sovereign.

Yes, and I love this point you are making. It is a VERY good argument!
KUDOS!

The only thing I would add for clarification is a distinction between what Calvin called "remote" and "proximate" causes.

God is the REMOTE or ULTIMATE cause for everything- period.

Skandelon, a devout Arminian, confirms this.

But there are SECONDARY, or proximate causes- and when people are themselves those secondary causes they are accountable for what they have caused.

So using your understanding, either way, your belief or mine, we are both in His will and being controlled by Him as to what we believe according to your understanding of how God works. So who can thwart the will of God?

This is correct. But he still holds you and I accountable for those things which we are the proximate cause of. He has ULTIMATELY caused it by willing that it should be and by ordering the universe so that with the passage of time and events these things will invincibly come to pass- but he is not the MORAL cause of the immoral which we do.

Since it is wrong for you to embrace a belief that is not right concerning God you will still be held accountable. God did not DIRECTLY cause you to believe that- God simply backed off his moral influence and allowed you to believe what you will. You are accountable for what you believe.

Keep in mind that even SATAN is in the ULTIMATE will of God- he will certainly be held accountable, nonetheless for what he causes proximately.

 

[Luke2427]

Again...

One CANNOT actually atribute to god as being the direct cause/forcing determining that Nazi tried to exterminate Jews, Stalin and Mao killing their Millions...
That IS Satanic, and God permitting all of that, and he wa/is at work redeeming goodness out of all that evil, but he is NOT doing all of that directly, and He knows that one day he WILL direct rule on Earth, his Kingdom will indeed come, burt NOT in its fulness until Second Coming of jesus Christ!

No one is saying that he has a direct MORAL involvement in the evil of those deeds.

But they could not happen had they not been ordained by God. NOT JUST THE OUTCOME- but the events THEMSELVES.

Here is Piper on Calvin on the matter:

Remote and Proximate Causes

It is interesting that Calvin does use cause, referring to God’s agency in bringing evil about, when he distinguishes between God as the “remote cause” and human agency as the “proximate cause.” Arguing that God is not the “author of sin,” he says, “the proximate cause is one thing, the remote cause another.”5 Calvin points out that when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.” The thieves, proximate cause of the evil, are guilty; but Job doesn’t question the motives of the Lord, the remote cause. Calvin does not, however, believe that the proximate/ultimate distinction is sufficient to show us why God is guiltless:

But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.6

He uses the proximate/remote distinction merely to distinguish between the causality of God and that of creatures, and therefore to state that the former is always righteous. But he does not believe the distinction solves the problem of evil. . . .

At least, the above discussion does indicate that Calvin is willing in some contexts to refer to God as a cause of sin and evil. Calvin also describes God as the sole cause of the hardening and reprobation of the wicked:

Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.7

 

[Luke2427]

Please refrain from personally demeaning comments. It is not necessary in a conversation with a fellow brother to call him a coward and a liar.

You lead the way by representing me honestly and by DIRECTLY addressing the subject matter at hand rather than deflecting.

I never said it was. I merely explained that the phraseology you chose can be taken to mean many different things, while my phraseology leaves no room for misunderstanding. Saying "God wills that people go to hell," is not a clear intent, while saying "God permits people to go to hell, but doesn't take pleasure in that," is very clear.

No. This intentionally skirts the issue at hand.

What you say here is not specific enough to even ADDRESS the subject matter in discussion.

Do you believe that God purposed in eternity past that men go to hell or not?

I know you do because you HAVE a theology and NNE with any REAL theology can deny this.

You can skirt it by saying this "permit" mess which is so ambiguous that NNE disagrees with it- not me, not Arminians, not Catholics, not Mormons, not Muslims, not ANYBODY.

This PERMIT statement is worthless and meaningless because it is so VAGUE that it does not answer ANYTHING.

Of COURSE God permits men to go to hell.

That is not the question.

The question which I am considering you to be cowardly for skirting and avoiding and purposefully refusing to specifically answer is this:

Do you believe that God purposed in eternity past that men go to hell or not?

Once again, your phrasing carries much ambiguity. I'd say, "God permitted for a vast number to perish in hell, but did not take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked." Those two phrases may mean the same thing to the author, but they are not both clear to the readers. I believe this is a common error you have made in our discussions.

Whether God is happy about it or not is not even an issue here.

I do not believe God is happy that men go to hell. I don't KNOW anyone who believes that!

This clarification is no clarification at all on your part. It is a smokescreen that you have thrown up for months now to keep from revealing what you REALLY believe to these who have no theology.

Do you believe that (whether happy about it or terribly sad about it) God purposed for men to go to hell in eternity past or not?

When God planned to build the universe did his plan and intention include that men go to hell or do men go to hell AGAINST the eternal purposes of God?

Let me be more specific:
Joe goes to hell. Did God purpose that in eternity past?
Is Joe's presence in hell a perfect fulfillment of God's eternal purposes?

Enter a skandelon deflection.

I doubt they disagree with me as much as you think they do. As explained above, I think your choice of words is less than clear than it could be leading to much confusion.

Then let's see. Answer clearly:

When God planned to build the universe did his plan and intention include that men go to hell or do men go to hell AGAINST the eternal purposes of God?

You know your REAL answer is YES. You know this is so because you KNOW that not ONE of God's eternal purposes can be thwarted.

You know this because you HAVE a REAL theology.

You know if you say YES that those who do NOT have a real theology will reject you on this issue as much as they reject Calvinists.

Yet, that doesn't mean you wouldn't have the cognitive ability to understand and correctly represent a view if it was presented. In the same manner, I am capable to hear and understand your view despite your endless and baseless charges to the contrary.

Then show it.

I KNOW you don't believe "God does EVIL," which is why I have included the statement "but God when God does 'IT' it is not called 'evil,' because he does it with a pure motive."

IT refers to DEEDS- not evil. In EVERY instance of our exchanges that has been the case.

A deed is not in and of itself EVIL because a DEED is not a PERSON. A deed has no PERSONALITY. EVIL as a moral force exists only in the motives of men.

Is stabbing a man to death EVIL?

NO. NEITHER is it good.

The only thing that can MAKE a deed evil or good is the heart of the one DOING the deed.

WHY is he stabbing the man to death? What is his MOTIVE?

That is the ONLY thing that determines whether something is good or evil.

You name a deed you consider evil and I will show you how it could be NON-evil if no evil intent is involved.

God KILLED JESUS. The Bible says so in no uncertain terms.

Herod and Pilate killed Jesus. The Bible says so clearly.

God did IT (the deed) with a RIGHTEOUS motive.
Herod and Pilate did it with a wicked motive.

The deed on Herod and Pilate's part was evil.
The deed on God's part was righteous.

Luke, 'IT' represents the subject at hand, which is and was 'EVIL.' (the word in the brackets). You say Satan does IT and God does IT. The qualifier is that IT is not evil when God does IT, but is when someone else does IT. We all understand IT, but now we are moving on to try and discover why you appeal to mystery regarding the origin of IT on the one hand, but on the other say IT isn't EVIL when God does IT.

No. See above.

IT refers to the DEED- not the EVIL.

Nothing can come from nothing? Really?

Yes. Really.

Dahmer's intent to eat, molest and kill is "NOTHING?" Really?
Satan's intent to "become like God," is "NOTHING?" Really?

Just exactly the same way that darkness is nothing.
Can nothing be a bad thing- philosophically yes.

Tell me- what is darkness?

Cold, I am told is nothing but the ABSENCE of heat.

Can cold be a bad thing? Certainly. But define cold. Cold is not SOMETHING. It is only the ABSENCE of that which is SOEMTHING- heat.

HEAT IS SOMETHING. It is energy.

Cold is not energy. It is not matter. It is not emotion. It is not thought. It is nothing.

In exactly the same way, Augustine declares, evil is NOTHING but the absence of good.

Can you point me to a scholar who teaches these things? I listened to the video and I never heard these things being taught.

The video was on compatabalism. That addressed another part of your argument and proved that I am not on the fringe of Calvinism as you once ignorantly declared when I say that God DID the DEED.

Are you not familiar with Augustine's theodicy?

 

[freeatlast]

Yes, this is Calvinism.

The Westminster Confession says this very thing.
The London Baptist Confession affirms this very thing as well.

Spurgeon said it EXQUISITELY (as he is known to do):

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.



Yes, and I love this point you are making. It is a VERY good argument!
KUDOS!

The only thing I would add for clarification is a distinction between what Calvin called "remote" and "proximate" causes.

God is the REMOTE or ULTIMATE cause for everything- period.

Skandelon, a devout Arminian, confirms this.

But there are SECONDARY, or proximate causes- and when people are themselves those secondary causes they are accountable for what they have caused.





This is correct. But he still holds you and I accountable for those things which we are the proximate cause of. He has ULTIMATELY caused it by willing that it should be and by ordering the universe so that with the passage of time and events these things will invincibly come to pass- but he is not the MORAL cause of the immoral which we do.

Since it is wrong for you to embrace a belief that is not right concerning God you will still be held accountable. God did not DIRECTLY cause you to believe that- God simply backed off his moral influence and allowed you to believe what you will. You are accountable for what you believe.

Keep in mind that even SATAN is in the ULTIMATE will of God- he will certainly be held accountable, nonetheless for what he causes proximately.

I always hold to accountability, but because of free will not because of Devine predestination. Using your assumption, God backed off His moral influence and He has also allowed you to believe as you do. In either case I see no judgment as neither belief has any substance in the salvation process or in the sanctification of the individual. It is merely an acknowledgement of what one or the other understands about the God they serve and in the end most likely both hold inconsistencies about the truth of the character of the God of creation.

 

[Luke2427]

I always hold to accountability, but because of free will not because of Devine predestination. Using your assumption, God backed off His moral influence and He has also allowed you to believe as you do. In either case I see no judgment as neither belief has any substance in the salvation process or in the sanctification of the individual. It is merely an acknowledgement of what one or the other understands about the God they serve and in the end most likely both hold inconsistencies about the truth of the character of the God of creation.

It is the very HEART of the matter of salvation.

Is salvation all of God (monergistic) or is it a cooperative effort on the part of God and the sinner (synergistic)?

And to say that it is not a matter of substance is to do as Erasmus did against Martin Luther to which Luther responded:

“BUT this is still more intolerable,—Your enumerating this subject of "Free-will" among those things that are "useless, and not necessary;" and drawing up for us, instead of it, a "Form" of those things which you consider "necessary unto Christian piety...
“If, as you say, it be "irreligious," if it be "curious," if it be "superfluous," to know, whether or not God foreknows any thing by contingency; whether our own will does any thing in those things which pertain unto eternal salvation, or is only passive under the work of grace; whether or not we do, what we do of good or evil, from necessity, or rather from being passive; what then, I ask, is religious; what is grave; what is useful to be known?”

Bondage of the Will- Section 5.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I will have you know, not all of us in Alabama marry our cousins and live in trailers, but we do eat grits.

My mother in law lives in a trailer in Florida, I have family who married cousins...but grits are a Southen thang...we have Mothers oats. Now, do you have a still?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[JesusFan]

It is the very HEART of the matter of salvation.

Is salvation all of God (monergistic) or is it a cooperative effort on the part of God and the sinner (synergistic)?

And to say that it is not a matter of substance is to do as Erasmus did against Martin Luther to which Luther responded:

“BUT this is still more intolerable,—Your enumerating this subject of "Free-will" among those things that are "useless, and not necessary;" and drawing up for us, instead of it, a "Form" of those things which you consider "necessary unto Christian piety...
“If, as you say, it be "irreligious," if it be "curious," if it be "superfluous," to know, whether or not God foreknows any thing by contingency; whether our own will does any thing in those things which pertain unto eternal salvation, or is only passive under the work of grace; whether or not we do, what we do of good or evil, from necessity, or rather from being passive; what then, I ask, is religious; what is grave; what is useful to be known?”

Bondage of the Will- Section 5.

Actually, BOTH cals and ARMS DO affirm that we are responsible to exercise 'saving faith" in jesus, and become saved by grace of God though!

BOTH affirm that man CANNOT make that decision unles/until God permits him to be enabled to place faithin jesus, differ in that WE see God enabling JUST those elcted by Him and granted "irresestible Grace" while Arms see it as God enabling by prevelient grace ALL to have option to reject/accept Christ!

Do you believe even placing personal faith in jesus and getting saved ia a work adding to grace than?

 

[Skandelon]

It is the very HEART of the matter of salvation.

Is salvation all of God (monergistic) or is it a cooperative effort on the part of God and the sinner (synergistic)?

Just for clarity Luke, I think you mean, "Is regeneration all of God (monergistic)..." because as JesusFan pointed out, even Calvinistis affirm the cooperative effort of man AFTER the man has been regenerated. So, salvation is synergistic for both of us, its the work of regeneration that is monergistic for you.

 

[Luke2427]

Just for clarity Luke, I think you mean, "Is regeneration all of God (monergistic)..." because as JesusFan pointed out, even Calvinistis affirm the cooperative effort of man AFTER the man has been regenerated. So, salvation is synergistic for both of us, its the work of regeneration that is monergistic for you.

No part of salvation is TRULY synergistic because all of it is initiated and empowered and brought to pass by One- God.

The regenerate heart believes- but only because God gives him faith to believe and enables him to believe and causes him to believe.

That's monergistic salvation- not just regeneration.