God desires for ALL to be saved!

[KenH]

Originally posted by Tuor:
So, according to your definition of sovereignty, you believe that at one point God was not sovereign.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall arguing that God could not give Adam free will and not remain sovereign. I have argued that man no longer has free will but only free choice after The Fall. Therefore, I find it to be in error to refer to man as having free will post-Adam's sin. Man lost free will but God remains sovereign, and I believe I am in line with the Bible on this. If God did not remain sovereign, no one would be saved.

 

[Eladar]

According to the Calvinists I've run into, if man has free will, then God is not sovereign.

If Adam had free will, then logically God was not soveriegn.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Tuor:
If Adam had free will, then logically God was not soveriegn.

Double predestinationists may look at it that way. I do not.

 

[Eladar]

So you believe that man can have free will and God be sovereign at the same time.

 

[KenH]

Yep. That's the way it was in the Garden of Eden before sin. Obviously, the two have not existed together since then.

 

[Eric B]

But it is being argued here, now (maybe not so much by you, but I know Archangel just said it), that any allowance of free will now "removes sovereignty", but you're saying now that man once did have free will, but lost it at the Fall. But if it precluded God's sovereignty now, then it would have then. Or if it's only the Fall that limited it, then soveeignty has nothing to do with it. You have to decide if free-will is limited by the Fall, or by sovereignty.

 

[KenH]

Don't know, Eric. You've done drilled down way past where my simple mind can go.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Tuor:
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.

This completely shuts down the arguement that God cannot be sovereign if man has free will! Good post!! End of discussion.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
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.

Ken, do you know anything about hermeneutics. We are talking about soteriology. That is the doctrine of salvation. This is a verse about Pauls feeling compelled to preach because of Christ's love. How in the world do you make the connection between those two?

BTW, notice what he is preaching, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, "Be reconciled to God."

Why would Paul be pleading on Christ's behalf for us to be reconciled to God if we can't be reconciled to God? That is pure non-sense!!!

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.

Preaching = Salvation????? That's a new equation.

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.

Actually I am laughing at you for actually thinking that these verses even apply to our discussion. I kinda feel sorry for you now because I'm a bit embarrased for you Ken.

God has been compelling preachers since the beginning. Remember the little VBS story about the man named Jonah who got swallowed by a big fishy, Kenneth? Or you could look at just about any of the prophets to see that this wasn't a job people were lining up for.

"How will they preach unless they are sent?" Who sent them? God through the guidance, direction and even the compulsion of the Holy Spirit, who comes through faith. That is why the Holy Spirit gets all the credit. The preacher wouldn't have ever preached had he not been compelled to do so by the Holy Spirit. Who gave the apostles divine utterance and inspired their writings to give us the Holy Scripture? The Holy Spirit. These are the means God has chosen to CALL the world to repentance. It's not some secret inward irresistable calling, it is a world wide calling.

"The Spirit of the Bride say COME!"

"Go into all the World."

"Preach to all creation."

"Tell the world!!!"

The call is to all, not just a select few!!!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
End of discussion.

I agree. God was sovereign and man had free will at the same time in the Garden of Eden. After The Fall of man, God remains sovereign and man no longer has free will but only free choice within his nature, whether before or after regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit. I am glad to see we all agree on this now.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
How in the world do you make the connection between those two?

Yeah, I know, Bill. You pick and choose on how you apply verses. You apply this command or principle to one group of people, and then you apply this command or principle to another group of people. It's kinda like professional wrestling, "catch as catch can" with you, Bill.

I won't be on the board for the next couple of days as I will out of town, so fire away. I won't be here to defend myself.

This post is done and I'm out for the weekend.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
This removes sovereignty from God and places it in the hands of man.

Says who?

Calvinists who want to win arguments against Arminians are the only ones who say this.

The fact that Adam was created with a free will proves that this does not limit God's sovereignity in any way shape or form. That's only your own opinion, there is no scripture to back that opinion up.

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.

I am not assuming that man has a choice. Even Calvinists admit that there a certain verses that lead people to believe that we have a geniune choice to make that will determine our salvation. (remember Rufus' post several months ago where he divided up the "Arminian" texts and the "Calvinistic" text )

If your honest Archangel you will admit that it certainly seems that we must choose to believe and repent if we are to be saved. To argue that most of humanity is not given that capasity seems to fly in the face of the most basic reading of the text.

Plus, I believe God made some choices as well. He chose Israel to be the nation to carry the line of Christ and to carry his message to the world. He chose (and even compelled) the prophets and the apostles out of Israel to carry out these tasks. He chose for the Gentiles to hear the gospel and the Israelites to be hardened to it temporarily. He chose to tell the world the good news of salvation that comes by Grace through faith in Christ.

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

How?

Because He is the one who made the choice to let us have a choice. If it was God's desire for man to choose don't you think God could have created a way for that to happen without giving up his Sovereignty in the process, or is that the one thing God couldn't do?

"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.

Yes it does. Notice what Piper concludes from his thesis:

"This is utterly crucial to see, for what it implies is that 1 Timothy 2:4 does not settle the momentous issue of God's higher commitment which restrains him from saving all. There is no mention here of free will. Nor is there mention of sovereign, prevenient, efficacious grace. If all we had was this text we could only guess what restrains God from saving all."

The problem with this conclusion is that 1 Tim. 2:4 is not the only verse that speaks about God's desire to save all. Matt. 23:37 expresses God longing to gather his people under his wings and then it specifically tells us "what restrains God from saving" them. Piper says we can only guess what that might be from passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4, but we don't have to guess with Matt. 23:37 because Jesus tells us very plainly. "BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING."

That contradicts what Piper refers to as the 2nd will of God in Salvation.

This shows, unfortunatly, a misunderstanding of traditional Calvinism. We do not say that we are compelled.

Read some of Ken's posts. Is that what you are refering to as being an "unfortunate misunderstanding of traditional Calvinism?

Plus, even Sproul and Piper argue that the word "draw" in John 6:44 means to "compel with irresistable force."

Isn't that what the "I" in TULIP is all about?

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.

Why? Why can't man decide his own fate? It sure seems as if scripture is putting that responsiblity upon man and we know that he will be judged for it, why should we think that he is not capable of doing that which he is commanded to do and judged for not doing???

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

I agree. I appreciate your tone as well. You are a joy to debate.

 

[Frogman]

God desires that all be saved, but to desire is not equal to what God Wills.

Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
God desires that all be saved, but to desire is not equal to what God Wills.

Bro. Dallas

Amen. Otherwise everyone would be saved.

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
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.

Bro. Bill, I have read after the authors mentioned by you. And I agree with many of their propositions, though not all of them

But, what Peter says is more important to me, for he reveals God's Word on the matter. I simply take his plain statements at face value.

Again, refer to Peter's context.

rufus

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by rufus:
Bro. Bill, I have read after the authors mentioned by you. And I agree with many of their propositions, though not all of them

But, what Peter says is more important to me, for he reveals God's Word on the matter. I simply take his plain statements at face value.

Again, refer to Peter's context.

rufus

[/QB]

The difference is that Bill responded to your post questioning Peter's context. You haven't tried to approach his Matthew passage.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The difference is that Bill responded to your post questioning Peter's context. You haven't tried to approach his Matthew passage.

Thank you Scott!

This has become a trend on this board for Calvinists to avoid dealing with difficult texts.

 

[BobRyan]

Bill --
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.

A good point. And devastating to the Calvinist position as Scott pointed out.

Bob

 

[Felix]

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.....A good point. And devastating to the Calvinist position as Scott pointed out.

Not quite!!!

HOW OFTEN I WANTED to gather your children.. BUT YOU Would Not!

I would like to humbly as I can attempt to exegete VERY briefly this text. First our Lord targets: Jerusalem, Jerusalem by which He addresses the leaders of that city. The reformed interpretation of this verse states that Jerusalem Jerusalem stands for the leaders (pharisees, etc.) for it was to them that the Lord sent the prophets first! It was also the leaders who killed those prophets.

Second, distinction should be made between 'gather your children' and 'you were not willing'. The Lord clearly is talking about two different groups. He wanted to gather the children (people of Jerusalem) but the pharisees (YOU...) were not willing to let them go. Please see also Mat 23:13 referring to the same issue.

Again, 'ALL mankind' in those other passages does not necessarely mean every single individual who ever lived and will live on this planet!! Context and the writer's style should be considered when picking and choosing verses out of Scripture. See also 1 Tim 2:4. We should be very careful how and when we interpret certain collective words like 'all', 'all man', 'world', 'whole world' and such like. In this case 'all man' simply means 'all kinds of men' kings, those in authority, etc. See context please!

Furthermore, 'all man' in I Tim 2:4 means 'all kinds of man', since the apostle in I Tim 2:1-3 exhorts believers to pray for "all men", meaning all kinds of man: "kings" and "all that are in authority" because God wants all kinds of man regardless of race, position, etc. to be saved.
Also, if 'men' in verse 4 means every single individual, than based on the context again we MUST interpret 'men' in verse 5 as every single individual as well. But if we do that, we have Christ as mediator between God and all man which is of course contrary to what Scripture teaches.
See what 'all men' means in: Tit 2:2-11 and 3:2 or Acts 21:28.

Here is one example how this word is being used elsewhere. Acts 22:15 "For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." We can be certain 'all men' here does not mean every individual on earth! Rather all kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Truth never dies...
Respectfully yours

Pardi

 

[BobRyan]

HOW OFTEN I WANTED to gather your children.. BUT YOU Would Not! Matt 23:37

Pardi --

First our Lord targets: Jerusalem

Yes - in the symbol of the city He addresses the entire Nation. vs 25-38 shows their entire history of rebellion and the stream of Apostles and prophets that had been sent and would be sent - to the nation of Israel represented under the symbol "Jerusalem".

Those whom He sought to gather and protect where the children of Israel - the people of Israel - but "YOU WOULD NOT" meaning in every case He mentions the leaders representing the nation chose rebellion over the protection of God.

The point here is that instead of arguing "Your children perish because I don't really care for ALL of you" - Christ shows the tension between what God WANTS and what the will of man is in certain cases.

Pardi --
Here is one example how this word is being used elsewhere. Acts 22:15 "For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." We can be certain 'all men' here does not mean every individual on earth! Rather all kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Again your "qualifier does not work" since IF you limit it to people Paul met in his lifetime then Paul failed to meet enough Chines, American Indians, Eskimos, Koreans, Japanese to truly claim "I have witnessed to all KINDS of mankind" - many of those "KINDS" were never met in his lifetime.

Why not just drop the "insert qualifiers as Calvinism needs it" approach?

Imagine what you would do if you were free to just read the text as it is written and accept the unqualified statements without having to restrict the Love of God to "some parts of all kinds of mankind" as if such a text existed.

IN Christ,

Bob