Yes, Ezekiel is talking to Covenant Israel. God is saying Israel's behavior is wicked. He takes no pleasure in the death of His Covenant people when they rebel against Him. He asks His people why they rebel and go to their own death when He would cover them in love. It is not unlike Jesus crying out over Jerusalem before his crucifixion. "Jerusalem oh Jerusalem..."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God's desire
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
First all of God's will is perfect. He does not have an imperfect will. So let me ask you this. In 1Thess 4:3 we read the following; 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
So are you saying that no Christian has ever committed fornication? I would say that God does not always get His will.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Martin do you not see mans free will in those words? "everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him" Both are present active participles, the person has to continue looking to Christ and continue believing in Christ if they are to have everlasting life.
Just so. "If the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed." 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he receive them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
Your problem, if I may say so, is that you are looking at John 6:40 but not at John 6:39. Both are true and both must be held together.
Once again, you cannot make Scripture say the opposite of what it actually says. You cannot make 'Our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him' to mean 'Our God is in heaven; He doesn't do whatever pleases Him.'
Let me try to explain this to you by way of analogy.
I don't know whether you clean your own windows or get someone else to do it. Let us assume the former for the sake of argument. Cleaning windows is not a lot of fun and I don't suppose you enjoy it for its own sake.
But you do it gladly because then you will be able to look out of them more clearly and see your palatial gardens with the lawns sweeping majestically down to the river and the herds of buffalo grazing on the far side..
It is written that '... It pleased the LORD to bruise [Christ]; He has put Him to grief.' You cannot read that to mean, 'It didn't please the LORD to bruise Him; He has got someone else to put Him to grief.' But I'm sure it did not delight the Father to see His beloved Son being scourged, and the nails driven into His hands and feet. Nevertheless, He was pleased. The Scripture says so. He was pleased because by His Son's voluntary suffering, His elect could be saved.
So although Ezekiel 18:23 tells us that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (and the judgment that comes thereafter) in itself, nonetheless He is pleased because His righteous judgment is upheld.
You correctly assume that Paul is writing to Christians. Multiple verses in the Bible assume that Christians will not lead sinless lives (eg. Hebrews 8:12). Sanctification in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 is progressive; those who are sinning will be brought to repentance.
I am not making Scripture say anything.
I am saying that I understand the reason for your interpretation and that I find it a readonable interpretation, but at the same time I believe that it is dependent on your theology rather than the text itself.
I do not think you understand the distinction I am making.
God does as He wills. His will is going to be accomplished. God, not man, determines the future. God is sovereign.
This does not mean - in one sence - that God desires all that will come to pass. But in another this does mean that all which comes to pass does so via God's will (or "pleasure").
Did God desire to suffer on the cross? In one way, no. He prayed that the cup may pass. But in another, yes, as this was our redemption (and He gave His life of His own will).
Maybt this illustration will help you understand the point:
As a father lay ill his two sons pray for him. The good son prays that God heal his father. The evil son prays that his father die so that he can collect his inheritance.
The father dies that night, as this was determined by God. Which son acted in accordance to God's will - the good son that prayed for his father to recover or the evil son that prayed for his father's death?
Now Scripture states that God desires all come to a knowledge of the truth. You say this means that God does not desire that all come to a knowledge of truth but that some do and others do not.
So in your interpretation God is equally pleased with the saved and the wicked as both are doing God's desire for them.
This is simply wrong. You are philosophizing rather than reading, and in the process you are missing the forest for the trees.
Does God desire all people (1 Timothy 2:4) to be saved unconditionally, or only according to His redemption plan?
Since all people are not saved, for example the person headed for swift destruction in 2 Peter 2:1, then God's desire is not unconditionally applied, but conditionally applied, to those whose faith in Christ He credits as righteous faith.
In order to make this possibility of salvation available to all humanity, Christ died as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6).
If a person does not believe "into Him" does God want him or her saved? Nope! To believe "into Him - John 3:16" is for God to credit your worthless faith as righteous faith and therefore transfer you spiritually to within Christ.
1) Scripture, Christ died as a ransom for all, Falselogy claims Christ died as a ransom for all sorts of people.
2) Scripture, Christ became the propitiation (the means of salvation) for the whole world, Falselogy claims Christ became the propitiation for the whole elect world.
3) Scripture, no one seeks God. Falselogy no one seeks God at any time.
Theology 101 says stick with what scripture says, not what it might possibly allow. God is perfect according to scripture, Falselogy says God is not perfect if God is not the God of Falselogy.
Since all people are not saved, for example the person headed for swift destruction in 2 Peter 2:1, then God's desire is not unconditionally applied, but conditionally applied, to those whose faith in Christ He credits as righteous faith.
In order to make this possibility of salvation available to all humanity, Christ died as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6).
If a person does not believe "into Him" does God want him or her saved? Nope! To believe "into Him - John 3:16" is for God to credit your worthless faith as righteous faith and therefore transfer you spiritually to within Christ.
1) Scripture, Christ died as a ransom for all, Falselogy claims Christ died as a ransom for all sorts of people.
2) Scripture, Christ became the propitiation (the means of salvation) for the whole world, Falselogy claims Christ became the propitiation for the whole elect world.
3) Scripture, no one seeks God. Falselogy no one seeks God at any time.
Theology 101 says stick with what scripture says, not what it might possibly allow. God is perfect according to scripture, Falselogy says God is not perfect if God is not the God of Falselogy.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Your problem, if I may say so, is that you are overlooking what we are told in these verses. John 6:39-40 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me" & "this is the will of Him who sent Me" So taking both verses together we see that Christ will raise up all those that are given to the Son because they have seen and believed in Him. Both are true and both must be held together.
And I agree that all those who believe in the Son will be set free from the consequence of their sin. But I have to ask, why would you expect a natural man to understand the things of the Spirit of God. I can understand why you quote 1 Corinthians 2:14 but what the verse does not say, and I think you are implying, is that man can not hear the gospel message and believe. That idea has to be read into the text. Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:13-14 that man can and do hear and believe the gospel message and are sealed by the Holy Spirit. These are the ones that will be able to understand the things of the Holy Spirit and those that continue to reject the gospel message will not.
[?QUOTE="JonC, post: 2811264, member: 12639"]Now Scripture states that God desires all come to a knowledge of the truth. You say this means that God does not desire that all come to a knowledge of truth but that some do and others do not.[/QUOTE]
You still don't get it! 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot contradict Psalms 115:3 and other verses. The task of the exegete is to harmonize them. The way that I do it is to look at the words 'all' and 'world' and observe that in many instances they simply cannot mean every single person. Did 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region around the Jordan' go out to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:5)? Yes, but surely not every single person? For example, there were only 'many' of the scribes and Pharisees (v.7), not all of them. To be sure, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' but are all 'justified freely by His grace'? In the first example, as has been shown by others, the context demands that 'all' means 'all sorts and conditions of people.' In the second, it means Jew and Gentile alike , who are both under sin (Romans 3:9). I could give multiple further examples of this sort of thing, but I have a life outside of this forum. But context is your friend, along with the Analogy of faith.
You still don't get it! 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot contradict Psalms 115:3 and other verses. The task of the exegete is to harmonize them. The way that I do it is to look at the words 'all' and 'world' and observe that in many instances they simply cannot mean every single person. Did 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region around the Jordan' go out to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:5)? Yes, but surely not every single person? For example, there were only 'many' of the scribes and Pharisees (v.7), not all of them. To be sure, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' but are all 'justified freely by His grace'? In the first example, as has been shown by others, the context demands that 'all' means 'all sorts and conditions of people.' In the second, it means Jew and Gentile alike , who are both under sin (Romans 3:9). I could give multiple further examples of this sort of thing, but I have a life outside of this forum. But context is your friend, along with the Analogy of faith.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You still don't get it! 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot contradict Psalms 115:3 and other verses. The task of the exegete is to harmonize them. The way that I do it is to look at the words 'all' and 'world' and observe that in many instances they simply cannot mean every single person. Did 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region around the Jordan' go out to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:5)? Yes, but surely not every single person? For example, there were only 'many' of the scribes and Pharisees (v.7), not all of them. To be sure, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' but are all 'justified freely by His grace'? In the first example, as has been shown by others, the context demands that 'all' means 'all sorts and conditions of people.' In the second, it means Jew and Gentile alike , who are both under sin (Romans 3:9). I could give multiple further examples of this sort of thing, but I have a life outside of this forum. But context is your friend, along with the Analogy of faith.[/QUOTE]
Yes context is the friend of those that use it. The problem is that for the average Calvinist context is not their friend.
Yes all and world can and are used to mean different things but context will guide you into the proper understanding of there use. That seems to be something that you are trying to avoid. You are allowing your theology to cloud your vision.
Silverhair, the less than average Reformed Christian gives more context in their comments than you have ever provided. You have shown us that context is your enemy.
Context does guide us to understand when "all" and "world" are qualified into a particular sphere and are not universal. @Martin Marprelate has never avoided this. He has addressed it head on, while you try to dance around context at every turn. How you interpret is just awful, awful stuff.
You still don't get it! 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot contradict Psalms 115:3 and other verses. The task of the exegete is to harmonize them. The way that I do it is to look at the words 'all' and 'world' and observe that in many instances they simply cannot mean every single person. Did 'Jerusalem, all Judea and all the region around the Jordan' go out to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:5)? Yes, but surely not every single person? For example, there were only 'many' of the scribes and Pharisees (v.7), not all of them. To be sure, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' but are all 'justified freely by His grace'? In the first example, as has been shown by others, the context demands that 'all' means 'all sorts and conditions of people.' In the second, it means Jew and Gentile alike , who are both under sin (Romans 3:9). I could give multiple further examples of this sort of thing, but I have a life outside of this forum. But context is your friend, along with the Analogy of faith.[/QUOTE]
Passages do not contradict one another.
The point Paul was making is that salvation is for the Jew and Gentile alike. On that we agree. But he makes that point by presenting a larger truth.
Scripture says God desires all come to a knowledge of truth. You say this is wrong, it should be read "some Jews and Gentiles".
Scripture says Christ is the Propitiation for the sins if the whole world. You say this means "the elect in the world".
Scripture says that God loved the world. You say this means "the elect".
Scripture says God reconciled man to Himself so that men could be reconciled. You say this means God reconciled the elect so that they are already reconciled.
Scripture says Christ tifted up will draw all men. You say this means "some men, i.e., the elect".
I understand why you interpret Scripture to be the opposite of what is written. But you are interpreting Scripture by reading your theology into it.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
If you actually understood context then perhaps you would be listened to but you have show by your denial of scripture that context is indeed not your friend. But I am sure that you will continue to trumpet your philosophy in the hope that some will believe you.
Austin I do trust that you actually do want to know the God of the bible but you have let your pride cloud your acceptance of the truth of scripture and instead run down a rabbit hole of contradictions. But your version of god has determined you to do so.
Silverhair, I understand context quite well. You, however, don't.
Silverhair, everyone sees what you are doing. You have a humanist view of God where you set yourself as equal cooperator with God. In fact, you set it up so that God needs your permission for you to be saved. I view your philosophy as incredibly arrogant.
If God desires every single person to come to a knowledge of the truth then Psalms 115:3 and various other verses are false. God desires all men to come to a knowledge of the truth - Jews and Gentiles, Pharisees and sinners, rich and poor, young and old and so forth.
1. That is not what the Scripture says.
2. That is not what I believe.
[/QUOTE]
Scripture says that God loved the world. You say this means "the elect".[/QUOTE]
1. Scripture doesn't say that.
2. That's not what I believe.
[/QUOTE]
Scripture says God reconciled man to Himself so that men could be reconciled. You say this means God reconciled the elect so that they are already reconciled.
That's not what I believe.
Is every single person drawn to Christ? No? Was He mistaken then? Not at all. Christ will draw all men - Jews and Gentiles, Pharisees and sinners, rich and poor, young and old and so forth. And when they come, it will be because the Father gave them to the Son to redeem (John 6:37), and because He has loved them with an everlasting love and drawn them with lovingkindness (Jeremiah 31:3).
Since you don't appear to have any idea what my theology is, I don't see how you can stand in judgment on it.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You keep saying that you understand context but your comments on here show that is not the case.You have read into scripture your errant theology and or changed the meaning of words to suit your view. That is not trusting scripture that is you trusting in what you think scripture says.
Your Calvinism is your blind spot and you are determined to hold to that view.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Scripture says that God loved the world. You say this means "the elect".[/QUOTE]
1. Scripture doesn't say that.
2. That's not what I believe.
[/QUOTE]
Scripture says God reconciled man to Himself so that men could be reconciled. You say this means God reconciled the elect so that they are already reconciled.
That's not what I believe.
Is every single person drawn to Christ? No? Was He mistaken then? Not at all. Christ will draw all men - Jews and Gentiles, Pharisees and sinners, rich and poor, young and old and so forth. And when they come, it will be because the Father gave them to the Son to redeem (John 6:37), and because He has loved them with an everlasting love and drawn them with lovingkindness (Jeremiah 31:3).
Since you don't appear to have any idea what my theology is, I don't see how you can stand in judgment on it.[/QUOTE]
While I can not and would not be the one to stand in judgement of your theology I can tell you that what you are presenting is not biblical but is rather something that you have made up in your own mind.
By your logic one could say the bible proves there is no God as you will find the phrase a number of times but it is not what the bible teaches is it. You pull verses out of context to support your errant view and then wonder why people question you on it. Take of those Calvinist glasses and trust the text of scripture. You will be glad you did.
Silverhair, if only one person was graciously saved, that would be one more than was deserved and God's love for the world would still be true.
"But God..."
Let those two words sink in to your cranium.
"But God..."
Not at all. The issue is you are philosophizing about verses rather than reading Scripture (you miss the forest for the trees).
God desires all come to knowledge of the truth. But all do not (those who reject God are not, as you imply, doing God's will).
- Status