God desires for ALL to be saved!

[William C]

And I submit that you hold to an inconsistant view of the scripture. I'm still waiting for how you deal with Matt. 23:37 and the others that express God's "desire" or "longing" to do that which is not accomplished because of man's unwillingness.

Until you provide some kind of explaination for these verses we'll just have to assume you hold to an inconsistant view of the bible.

 

[William C]

BTW, you may want to stop calling yourself a Spurgeonite, I believe he held to the same view as Piper does on this issue. Just thought you should know.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
you may want to stop calling yourself a Spurgeonite

I have.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'm still waiting for how you deal with Matt. 23:37

The context is the seven woes that Christ pronounced on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.

Look at Matthew 23:13 and 23:37. The leaders were the ones who were refusing to submit to God and the teaching of Jesus, and instructing others not to do so, either. They were unwilling as all unregenerated people are unwilling.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'm still waiting for how you deal with Matt. 23:37

The context is the seven woes that Christ pronounced on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.

Look at Matthew 23:13 and 23:37. The leaders were the ones who were refusing to submit to God and the teaching of Jesus, and instructing others not to do so, either. They were unwilling as all unregenerated people are unwilling. </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, if you keep changing names like that your going to run out of people to name yourself after.

Verse 13 says: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You lock up the kingdom of heaven from people. For you don't go in, and you don't allow those entering to go in.

I am well aware of this context and I'm not sure how it explains this passage in your view. He is refering to the unwillingness of the Jewish people throughout the generations, but the focal point is on God longing to gather them in the midst of their unwillingness. You talked about man's unwilliness but you failed to deal with God's longing desire that was not accomplished. That is the issue here is it not?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
you failed to deal with God's longing desire that was not accomplished

God's desire is always accomplished. You see...

Oh, never mind, what's the use, you won't agree anyway.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
you failed to deal with God's longing desire that was not accomplished

God's desire is always accomplished. You see...

Oh, never mind, what's the use, you won't agree anyway. </font>[/QUOTE]

That's a cop out and you know it Ken.

Piper and I have clearly shown you where God's desires were not accomplished as do the verses that you refuse to deal with. Revealing.

I can't believe you are content to holding a doctrine that is so blantantly against the obvious meaning of the text. Just admit you were wrong and take on Piper's view so you can continue on this board with some kind of credibility. Its clear you have no idea how to deal with this text.

 

[rufus]

II Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

To whom is Peter writing?

About what is Peter writing?

Who is God longsuffering to, according to Peter? [Note the modifying pronoun]

What kind of pronoun is "any"?

What kind of adjective is "all"?

The context defines clearly whom it is to whom God is longsuffering and whom it is He does not wish to perish.

rufus 0)

 

[William C]

Rufus, we have been through all of this.

Even Calvinistic scholar such as Piper, Spoul and MacArthur affirm that God desires all men to be saved. The evidence in scripture is too great not to.

Matt. 23:37 shows us that God's longing desire was not accomplished because of man's unwillingness, not because of His unwillingness to grant them salvation, but because they were unwilling to come.

You need to read Pipers article posted by Archangel on the first page of this thread if you want to hold to a semi consistant view of scripture with your Calvinistic system, because if you try to deny that God did desire to save all men you are clearly going against the revelation of scripture.

 

[The Archangel]

You need to read Pipers article posted by Archangel on the first page of this thread if you want to hold to a semi consistant view of scripture with your Calvinistic system, because if you try to deny that God did desire to save all men you are clearly going against the revelation of scripture.

Bill,

I think that you are dismissing a very important part of the Piper arguement.

Piper says that 1 Timothy 2:4 Does say that God wills that all be saved. However all are not saved. How can this be, espically in light of Ps 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. (NASB)"

If it is God's will that all be saved, why aren't they?

The answer: There is another will in God that wills NOT to save all even though He is willing that all be saved. Arminians and Calvinists both agree to some part of this.

Why, then, the two wills. Well, Arminians say that the higher will is abrogated to insure the most precious thing--human freedom.

The Calvinist says that the higher will is abridged for the purpose that God's soverignty in the salvation of man leaves no room for anyone to boast.

The area that your view doesn't answer very well is this: If God wills all to be saved, why is it that not all are (or will be) saved?

The Possibilities:

1. God cannot accomplish His will (impotence).
--This must be rejected

2. There is a higher power other than God which can frustrate Him,
--This must also be rejected.

3. God, while willing to save all in one sense, decides to save some. (The two-wills principle).

We must take number three. It is the only one that makes sense of the Biblical data and keeps God sovereign.

Unfortunatly, many Arminian arguements on this topic seem to exalt the sovereignty of man over and above the sovereignty of God. This is unacceptable. The Bible never presents even the remotest possibility of man (or his will, for that matter) being allowed to be placed above God's will.

Blessings, my friend,

Archangel

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
I think that you are dismissing a very important part of the Piper arguement.

Piper says that 1 Timothy 2:4 Does say that God wills that all be saved. However all are not saved. How can this be, espically in light of Ps 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. (NASB)"

If it is God's will that all be saved, why aren't they?

The answer: There is another will in God that wills NOT to save all even though He is willing that all be saved. Arminians and Calvinists both agree to some part of this.

Why, then, the two wills. Well, Arminians say that the higher will is abrogated to insure the most precious thing--human freedom.

The Calvinist says that the higher will is abridged for the purpose that God's soverignty in the salvation of man leaves no room for anyone to boast.

I don't dismiss this. I understand it perfectly. In fact I used to argue it quite frequently when I debated Armininans. I expected this argument when I started this thread but you have been the only one to bring it, the other Calvinists on this board are still trying to maintain the view that God doesn't desire for all to be saved. I'm just trying to inform them that their view is not the "orthadox" position of their side. I hoped Piper's article would convince them so we could move on to debating the real issues here. I will do that with you.

The area that your view doesn't answer very well is this: If God wills all to be saved, why is it that not all are (or will be) saved?

The Possibilities:

1. God cannot accomplish His will (impotence).
--This must be rejected

2. There is a higher power other than God which can frustrate Him,
--This must also be rejected.

3. God, while willing to save all in one sense, decides to save some. (The two-wills principle).

We must take number three. It is the only one that makes sense of the Biblical data and keeps God sovereign.

You are leaving one possiblity out.

4. God, who desired to save all, wanted man to love and worship Him by their own volitional choice and not by irresistable force, so he made salvation free to whosoever would believe and repent.

Unfortunatly, many Arminian arguements on this topic seem to exalt the sovereignty of man over and above the sovereignty of God.

This would only be true if the Calvinistic premise is correct. You can't just assume that.

If God chose for man to have a choice then He maintains that sovereignity.

If I'm the CEO of a company and I decide to allow my employees to choose if they want to earn extra money by working overtime or not have I lost my control over the company? No, I made the decision to allow them to choose. That doesn't mean I lose all control. Why, because it was apart of my original plan.

The Bible never presents even the remotest possibility of man (or his will, for that matter) being allowed to be placed above God's will.

"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

This is just one of many examples where God allowed for man to go against His desire.

Why, then, the two wills. Well, Arminians say that the higher will is abrogated to insure the most precious thing--human freedom.

No, human freedom is not the most precious thing. The most precious thing is God glory.

Piper once wrote: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

I agree with this, but I believe what brings God the glory is when we are satisfied in Him because we choose to be not because He compels us to it.

I love it when my wife hugs me and tells me she loves me. It feels me with joy and satisfaction. But if I were to irresistably force her to do that I wouldn't find pleasure in that. I might as well hug myself, or get a blow up doll that can't refuse to hug me (there are some people who do that btw, and I don't think they are satisfied in that kind of one way relationship, do you?)

The Calvinist says that the higher will is abridged for the purpose that God's soverignty in the salvation of man leaves no room for anyone to boast.

This is where you mess up. God sovereignty is not compromised by giving us a choice. We are not trying to say that we got the choice by our will, God gave us the choice and he is sovereign.

And as I have already shown, boasting spoken of in scripture is in rebuttal to those who are seeking salvation through works of the law, not those of us who believe salvation comes through faith. (Romans 3:27-41)

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I believe what brings God the glory is when we are satisfied in Him because we choose to be not because He compels us to it.

2 Corinthians 5:14(NASB)
14 For the love of Christ controls us...

Whoops, Bill.

The Bible says we are controlled by an outside force.

1 Corinthians 9:16-17(NASB)
16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.

Whoops, Bill.

The apostle Paul stated that he didn't willingly preach the gospel. He did it against his will. So I guess you, Bill, are going to call Paul a robot, a mere puppet. I guess, Bill, that you are going to say that God was not pleased with Paul's service since it was not done by "free will". Furthermore, based on 2 Corinthians 5:14, I guess, Bill, that you are going to say that God is not pleased with any of His children since are all controlled by Christ's love and not our "free will".

So you see, Bill, your idea of "free will" falls flat on it face based on Biblical examples and language. That's game, set, and match, Bill. Your arguments are toast.

Let's see who's laughing now.

This post is done and I'm out.

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

4. God, who desired to save all, wanted man to love and worship Him by their own volitional choice and not by irresistable force, so he made salvation free to whosoever would believe and repent.

This removes sovereignty from God and places it in the hands of man.

ME: Unfortunatly, many Arminian arguements on this topic seem to exalt the sovereignty of man over and above the sovereignty of God.

YOU: This would only be true if the Calvinistic premise is correct. You can't just assume that.

The converse is the same. Your assumptions (Arminianism) only allow for man to do the choosing. This can only be the case if Arminianism is true. You can't just assume that.

If God chose for man to have a choice then He maintains that sovereignity.

How?

"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

This is just one of many examples where God allowed for man to go against His desire.

This does not allow for the two-wills principle that you advocate earlier.

I agree with this, but I believe what brings God the glory is when we are satisfied in Him because we choose to be not because He compels us to it.

This shows, unfortunatly, a misunderstanding of traditional Calvinism. We do not say that we are compelled. We say that, through regeneration, God frees us from the bondage of sin and allows us to choose Him. It is that whole "Dead in sin" thing.

This is where you mess up. God sovereignty is not compromised by giving us a choice. We are not trying to say that we got the choice by our will, God gave us the choice and he is sovereign.

If the choice is ours, the choice is not God's. If this is the case, man is sovereign and God is not.

And as I have already shown, boasting spoken of in scripture is in rebuttal to those who are seeking salvation through works of the law, not those of us who believe salvation comes through faith.

I'm not debating that point...(Yet?). I am saying that if man chooses God (without being regenerated by an act of God allowing him to choose) than man holds the trump card. This can never be.

Blessings, (AND! I appreciate the "Tone" of our discussion. It is quite refreshing to discuss rather than have people attack my mental capabilities.)

Archangel

 

[Eladar]

This removes sovereignty from God and places it in the hands of man.

According to man's logic this could be true.

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This removes sovereignty from God and places it in the hands of man.

According to man's logic this could be true. </font>[/QUOTE]Tuor,

Actually, according to the Biblical data it must be true. God always writes of Himself saying things like "I will do, For my namesake I will act, I have said it and I will bring it to pass." We never see God allowing man the sovereignty concerning anything.

While I don't like this and still bristle against it from time-to-time, I can see no other way to read the Bible.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[KenH]

Revelation 3:7(NASB)
7 ..."He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens..."

Certainly sovereignty is taught here. And not nary a mention of "free will".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I expected this argument when I started this thread but you have been the only one to bring it, the other Calvinists on this board are still trying to maintain the view that God doesn't desire for all to be saved. I'm just trying to inform them that their view is not the "orthadox" position of their side. I hoped Piper's article would convince them so we could move on to debating the real issues here. I will do that with you.

Just for the record, I have said this from day one, but like most, subscribe to the "two-will principle."

 

[Eladar]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Tuor,

Actually, according to the Biblical data it must be true. God always writes of Himself saying things like "I will do, For my namesake I will act, I have said it and I will bring it to pass." We never see God allowing man the sovereignty concerning anything.

While I don't like this and still bristle against it from time-to-time, I can see no other way to read the Bible.

Blessings,

Archangel

I have no doubt that this is the way you read the Bible. God created some for noble purposes and some for ignoble. God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born.

Yet there are other passages that show that God believes we have a choice. In Ezekiel 18 God states that He doesn't like it when people turn from Him. He tell everyone to turn to Him and be saved.

When Jesus gives parables about the kingdom of heaven and salvation he gives examples that teach that our salvation is based on our own decisions. I've mentioned in some thread recently the parable of the king and the slave. In it, Jesus teaches that if we choose not to forgive, God will reinstate the sins that He has already forgiven. In the parable of the wedding feast, God has people thrown out because they chose not to dress apropriately.

As to the topic of soveriegnty, God gets to set the rules. Just because you might not allow others free will, if you had the choice, that does not mean that God doesn't or can't. It seems to me that your side is the one that limits God's ability. No where in the Bible do I find "In order for God to be soveriegn, He can't allow any being to make their own decision".

I hear it out of alot of people around here, but I don't find it in the Bible.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Tuor:
"In order for God to be soveriegn, He can't allow any being to make their own decision".

He did that with Adam and Adam blew it and now all of mankind is plunged into an awful mess.

 

[Eladar]

Oh, I see. You believe that God gave Adam free will. So, according to your definition of sovereignty, you believe that at one point God was not sovereign.