Freewill bites the dust

[mnw]

Johnp, thank you for your answers. I appreciate your taking the time to answer them.

When it comes to positions I disagree with they kind of fall into two categories.

1. They make absolutely no sense, I cannot see the grounds for them and completely disagree.

2. I understand the grounds for the belief and the process that brought them to their conclusions. I respect them, even though I disagree.

Your answers fall into the second category. I find myself understanding your position, I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree.

Yes, it goes both ways. To counter your question, is the free-willer God so stupid and incompetent that He can't figure out a way to save everyone, even though He's not willing that any should perish?

No, of course He is neither stupid nor incompetent. Ezekiel states several times that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but it still happens. Just because God is not willing that any should perish does not make it necessary for Him to force anyone to accept or reject Him.

I believe God does not enforce His will, if so, how could He ever be grieved. If nothing ever happened outside His will and desire then how could He ever be provoked or sorrowed or regret?

The Psalmist states that in the wilderness the children of Israel "limited the Holy One of Israel" (Psalm 78:41).

Christ in Matthew23:37 said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and yewouldnot!"

Christ said it was His will and desire to gather Jerusalem to Himself, but they would not.

God wills for all to be saved, but unless they respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit by grace through faith they will not be saved.

Johnp, thanks again for your answers, I'll do what I can to reply.

You should ask Him: Dt 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.

Because that is exactly the command isn't it? Love me or go to Hell in short. Some chat up line a?

Yes, love is a command, but it is down to the response that is in question here.

He does not fear rejection because He will not let us reject Him. ...To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ: Jude 1. We are kept.

I disagree.

The scripture says that the mind controlled by the sinful nature is at war with God. It says that the mind controlled by the Holy Spirit is one of life and peace. Rom 8:6-7. If God turns a man's emnity away, which will be good for the man and his neighbour, why do people think that is a terrible sinful interuption of our sovereignty yet claim God is still Sovereign if He doesn't? That's the problem. When people say He doesn't interfer with our will it leaves us sovereign in what we do. It must.

This is the argument I have with orthodox Calvinism. If men can decide of their own sinful will to go to Hell then God is not Sovereign in that choice yet we read that He chose who would go to Hell without taking deeds into account, Romans 9:11. Even if they choose what God wants they have still made a sovereign choice.

I appreciate your honesty in the whole double-predestination thing. It shows what SOME call an extreme but what many non-calvinists see as consistency and the logical end.

It is not a terrible interruption for God to enforce His will on a person. But, it is inconsistent with Scripture, as far as some see it. Again, I do not see how sovereignty is lost by allowing a choice. God in His Omnipotence says, "Here are two choices."

The only way we could be seen to be sovereign over God is to somehow reject those two choices and make up a third and enforce that third choice. And that cannot happen.

I believe your description of Sovereign is accurate. But, the belief that sovereignty is somehow lost by allowing choice I disagree with.

God bless.

 

[johnp.]

Christ said it was His will and desire to gather Jerusalem to Himself, but they would not.

That is to misunderstand what Jesus is saying mnw. If you let me know what is meant by 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem' I'll get on with an explanation. On the face of it Jesus seems to be wringing His hands over a thing He cannot have but He is far from that.

Hyper Man.

I don't believe in common grace, does that make me hyper? Common grace is used to make God seem nicer. Any gift a man receives from God causes more guilt to come to those who receive it leading to a greater judgement for those who are not forgiven.
Wealth brings men a greater degree of guilt when the one so blessed, so to speak, does not respond in the correct way in giving thanks to God but attributing their wealth to other causes, luck, hard work and so on.

john.

 

[mnw]

I read it and interpret what I see. Why don't you tell me what it really means then

And I mean this sincerely, if it is an interpretation I need to consider then I trust the Lord to give me a teachable spirit.

 

[johnp.]

Jesus says to the leaders of Israel that He has often wanted to gather their children, the Israelites, but they were not willing. It says nothing about the children or that Jesus was unable to save them, He says they themselves were not willing not that He did not save their children.
Their house was and still is desolate and they, the religious leaders, will only see when Jesus returns.

...how often I have longed to gather your children together... God is patient and has decided to wait for the elect to be born.

It's a bit rushed but I put it forward as a starting place mnw.

john.

 

[mnw]

That reads to me like because the leaders were not willing for the children to be saved Jesus was not able to gather them to Himself.

This more than anything else I have read seems to question to Sovereignty of God.

Am I reading it wrong?

 

[johnp.]

I'm just off to work so it's rushed.

Jesus said that He has often wanted to gather the children, He does not say He won't but does say they, the leaders were not willing.

If Jesus is prevented from saving the children by their leaders then not only is God not Sovereign but the children have no free will in it.

See you later mnw.

john.

 

[mnw]

I don't know, I just keep coming back to the simple statement, "...how often would I...ye would not"

It seems either way, Sovereignty, under the calvinist's description, is being asserted against the will of God.

 

[johnp.]

Hello mnw.

"...how often would I...ye would not"

Sorry I didn't respond yesterday but I got caught up, not to Heaven though.
Maybe you do but why don't you ask about the children. If free will is so important how comes Jesus couldn't save the children because of Jerusalem's 'would not'?

To have God twarted, or as you might say, His own restriction stops Him, leaves free willers out in the cold doesn't it? The children are suffering for the sins of the fathers. Where is free will keeps coming at me. If I was anything of a scholar I would make sure of this verse but I find the underside of the carpet for both sides more inticing.

It would be a contradiction for both of us in one sentence taken as it seems!

The only way I can see the 'how often' is the same as 'He is not willing that any perish'. With my doctrine that means only those elect. Since He is waiting patiently, Rom 9:22 says that He ...bore with great patience the objects of his wrath... and if He is patient He must be left with a longing. A desire to be with His Children.

That sorts me but it is cumbersome. You must explain why the children suffer for the sins of the fathers?

I can't use the argument that the children here mention will suffer the sins of the fathers because that would leave Jesus longing for what He knows He will not get. This is true isn't it? He will be heart-broken forever. I do believe those in authority above us are used by God to bring judgements on nations and families at times but the children here mentioned are not cut-off by Jesus. Jesus only said they would not, He doesn't need their permission.


GAL 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

GAL 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

If I get time today I'll look into it further.

john.

 

[Andy T.]

And you believe TULIP, which hypercalvinists also believe. Right? Does that mean I get to lump you in with those who believe you shouldn't preach to a mixed congregation?

Nicholas, you seem to think that the only brand of Hypers are those who do not believe in missions or evangelism. Granted, those might be the most common brand, but there are other brands of Hypers, like Johnp, who believe God is the direct source and cause of evil and sin.

 

[npetreley]

Nicholas, you seem to think that the only brand of Hypers are those who do not believe in missions or evangelism. Granted, those might be the most common brand, but there are other brands of Hypers, like Johnp, who believe God is the direct source and cause of evil and sin.

No, I'm simply saying you're painting with too wide a brush when you post those links as descriptive of johnp. He has to speak for himself as to whether or not he agrees with all the attributes of hyper-calvinists given in those links, but I don't get the impression that the bulleted list of attributes of hyper-calvinists matches johnp's views. For example, I don't think johnp believes it is wrong to preach to a mixed congregation. He is, after all, posting here.

I don't know whether or not my views align perfectly with johnp's views, but I happen to believe God is the first cause of sin and evil, and that it was a deliberate part of His plan to demonstrate ALL of His Glory to His creation. I also believe in double-predestination, and that NOTHING occurs outside God's will. But I disagree strongly with some of the attributes of hyper-calvinists found in the links you provided. So I would rather you didn't provide links like that as if I belonged in that group. That was my point.

 

[Blammo]

I happen to believe God is the first cause of sin and evil, and that it was a deliberate part of His plan to demonstrate ALL of His Glory to His creation.

So, God came up with the ideas, and caused them to be played out by murderers, rapists, sodomites, pedophiles, etc.? And, that was to glorify Him before His creation? Then, you came along and revealed the true source of these evil things? Does it still glorify Him? If so, in what way?

 

[npetreley]

So, God came up with the ideas, and caused them to be played out by murderers, rapists, sodomites, pedophiles, etc.? And, that was to glorify Him before His creation? Then, you came along and revealed the true source of these evil things? Does it still glorify Him? If so, in what way?

Your answer is in bold:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Not many people ever notice the part about wanting to show His wrath, or even consider the fact that part of God's glory is shown in His wrath IN ADDITION to His mercy, and other aspects of His character. Now, one of you will say to me, "How can God justify having wrath upon creatures that are simply doing His will, because who resists His will?" But, indeed, O man, who are you...and we're back to where we started.

 

[Rippon]

AMEN , npetreley . It seems that Paul's objectors ( really the Lord's) in Romans 9 are alive on this board in great numbers .

 

[J.D.]

One of the problems with modern Baptists (arminian - pelagian) is that they are blinded by moralism. They compare themselves among themselves and are not wise. They keep bringing up references to rapes and murders and tortures and such; but they forget that the sweet child that refuses to let mommy put their diaper on is just as much in rebellion against God as the violent criminal. Which leads them to their sense of justice, or rather, their accusation against God that He is not just. They say things like "why does God let bad things happen like rape and murder and torture", when what they should be saying is "why does God let bad people like ME be saved"?

 

[webdog]

but they forget that the sweet child that refuses to let mommy put their diaper on is just as much in rebellion against God as the violent criminal.

This is ridiculous. The baby know it's sinning against God? What Law does the baby realize they are breaking? Try reading Romans 5 sometime...

 

[Blammo]

Your answer is in bold:


Not many people ever notice the part about wanting to show His wrath, or even consider the fact that part of God's glory is shown in His wrath IN ADDITION to His mercy, and other aspects of His character. Now, one of you will say to me, "How can God justify having wrath upon creatures that are simply doing His will, because who resists His will?" But, indeed, O man, who are you...and we're back to where we started.

I'll take that as a yes.

So, God is the author, designer, instigator of all these demented, wicked, perverted acts? It is not that He allows it, He actually makes it happen, it proceeds from His own imagination?

The few verses that you posted don't seem to me to support this. The fact that He 'endures' such things is presented, but that He causes them is not. You may even be able, with these few verses, to show that God created a group of people that would always be wicked. However, that still falls short of saying He designed their actions.

I will need to see much more biblical support for your accertion that 'God is the author of sin'.

That these things are foreordained, predestined, or predetermined, I can also accept. In that, God knew these things were going to happen, and He chose not to change it.

Calvinism, as I thought I knew it, does seem a bit more reasonable to me now.

 

[Blammo]

One of the problems with modern Baptists (arminian - pelagian) is that they are blinded by moralism. They compare themselves among themselves and are not wise. They keep bringing up references to rapes and murders and tortures and such; but they forget that the sweet child that refuses to let mommy put their diaper on is just as much in rebellion against God as the violent criminal. Which leads them to their sense of justice, or rather, their accusation against God that He is not just. They say things like "why does God let bad things happen like rape and murder and torture", when what they should be saying is "why does God let bad people like ME be saved"?

I am not saying "why does God let bad things happen...", on the contrary, I am saying "God does not desire, design, or cause sin". That is what I am arguing against.

Why does God allow bad people like me be saved? Amen!!! I don't deserve to be saved, I didn't earn it. I deserve to go to hell. Praise God for His unspeakable mercy.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I think that all the horrible evil things that happen ultimately comes from satan. Of course Isaiah 45:7 says that God creates evil. That evil is in the form of calamity. That evil is just, in that if we all were recipents of that evil, we would deserve it.

I always have a problem with the evil that befalls children. I Know that God allows it to happen. He would not be sovereign and the bible would not be true if he could not have stopped it. But does that kind of evil begin with God. No way. God is absolutely perfect, or He is not God. That perfect goodness can in no way be the author of something so evil.

Theodicy is a subject I've studied long and hard. It is still as hard to put my arms around as the day I started studying it.

 

[skypair]

I think that all the horrible evil things that happen ultimately comes from satan.

So you're a "dualist" now?

Of course Isaiah 45:7 says that God creates evil. That evil is in the form of calamity.

You have misconstrued Isa 45:7 sir -- He creates terrible consequences but those consequences are NOT sin. God does not sin -- He does not cause sin as some here are suggesting!

I always have a problem with the evil that befalls children.

[ That, basically, comes from your "deterministic" Calvinist beliefs, I'm afraid.

I Know that God allows it to happen. He would not be sovereign and the bible would not be true if he could not have stopped it. But does that kind of evil begin with God. No way. God is absolutely perfect, or He is not God. That perfect goodness can in no way be the author of something so evil.

Thank you -- that is inspiring and true! :thumbs: Basically, what happens to children happens on account of "the fall of Adam." You know, God WAS in perfect control, as you believe He still is, when Adam obeyed.

Theodicy is a subject I've studied long and hard. It is still as hard to put my arms around as the day I started studying it.

Just a thought -- why don't you adjust your paradigm? I've ALWAYS found that when I am at a "dead end," God wants me to change some way or another.

skypair

 

[J.D.]

This is ridiculous. The baby know it's sinning against God? What Law does the baby realize they are breaking? Try reading Romans 5 sometime...

Their fallen nature is shown in their behavior, whether they know it or not.