Here is another one...

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Given that you phrase it as what God "permissively desires", you don't even seem to understand what other people are talking about when they use the term God's "permissive will".

Ok, then please explain to me what you mean when you use the term "premissive will." Thanks.

Yes, anything He wants except, according to most arminians, violate their free will decision to go to hell (with, of course, some exceptions, which arminians gloss over). That's where arminians draw the line for God, excpecting Him to obey.

I have never said that God never violates man's will. Paul's will was obviously violated. But because the bible does seem to teach both God's effectual call and man's responsiblity instead of just claiming, "that's a paradox" why not see to whom the effectual call might be in reference too and for what purpose they would have been effectually called? It makes much more sense and its consistant with the biblical teachings concerning Israel's hardening.

If we were really talking about salvation, then it sounds like they would have been better off if God forced them to believe. But it wasn't about believing, it was about repentance. And, yes, their repentance was short-lived. There's a lesson in there somewhere arminians don't want to acknowledge.

Funny, I was thinking there was a lesson for Calvinists. What lesson should Arminians learn about Ninevah's short lived repentance?

Why should we complicate it further? You've already complicated it by turning it into a question of salvation when the Bible says it was a matter of repentance and avoiding destruction

You don't think the story of Ninevah was in regard to salvation? What do you call repentance and the avoidance of destruction if its not salvation?

-- and even then, it was part of a MUCH BIGGER point about how God's mercy applies to people other than the Jews, and the sovereignty of God (Jonah couldn't decide NOT to preach to the Ninevites).

Jonah did decide NOT to preach to the Ninevites and God sovereignly intervened. Just as Paul resisted the Holy Spirit's indwelling when Stephen preached (Acts 7:51) and God sovereignly intervened. Why? To accomplish a specific purpose.

Excellent. And what's the phrase Jesus keeps repeating? "cannot become my disciple", "no one can become my disciple", etc.

Nick, please don't misquote the text; there are some important words you just so happen to leave out. "Otherwise" and "if" or "without"

"Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple."

"So no one can become my disciple without giving up everything for me."

"And you cannot be my disciple if you do not carry your own cross and follow me."

Nick, he is telling the people the COSTS that they must count when deciding whether or not to follow Him. That is clear in this text.

The primary definition of "disciple" is...

1 : one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a : one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's followers according to the Gospel accounts b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual

This is not about who can be saved and who cannot.

So, you believe that someone could have been saved without actually being a disciple? (I see the difference between salvation and apostleship, but is there a distinction between salvation and being a follower of Christ?

"Go ye into all the world and make DISCIPLES" (BTW, he said that to the Apostles)

Not all are given the task or gift to spread the doctrines of Christianity.

Reeeeeaaaaaly? So, not all people are called to evagelize the lost? Witness to others? "Be active in sharing their faith..."? Hmmm that's an interesting take.

I believe that not everyone has been given to apostleship, in that they are not inspired to write scripture and perform miraclous signs etc; but you are taking this to mean not all believers are going to be disciples? Please explain.

If the above were true of all who are saved, then only those who carry their cross would be saved, yet there are obviously those who are saved but do not carry their cross even regarding the things they are assigned to do:

Now, Nick, come on. Most people don't think that Christ literally means carry an actual cross, any more than later when he says "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood" that he was speaking literally. To carry the cross means that you must be willing to die for Him, you must be willing to give up everything, it is not even in reference to becoming a preacher or something. This line of reasoning is even unusally weak for you Nick.

Regardless, even though it is referring to the cost of being a disciple and not necessarily the cost of being saved, BILL: [AS IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE] it seems to me to be primarily, though not exclusively, exhortation. (It is not exclusive because Jesus is talking to those who will not be disciples, as well.) Assume for a moment you were standing before a dozen people who you knew were going to be your disciples. Wouldn't you warn them, in as strong a way as possible, about the cost? "If you can't hack it, get out now" is an expression people still use for those they know aren't going to choose to get out. The expression is, in itself, a method of preparing them for the trials that lay ahead.

I do agree that Jesus was speaking to a group of people that, for the most part, would not follow him, afterall most of them were temporarily hardened. But Jesus is not going to lie to them or deceive them into thinking that they have the ability to consider the cost when they never would be given that ability.

It was only given to the apostles to learn directly from Christ while he was in the flesh during those short few years of public ministry before his death and assention and the coming of the Spirit. During that time Israel was hardened so as to ensure the crucifixtion and the ingrafting of the Gentiles. I believe many of those who had Christ crucified were later saved as recorded in Acts.

 

[The Archangel]

Ray,

Good Day! I hope you are well!!!

Almighty God has limited His overwhelming power in not autocratrically saving everyone for a reason. Because He has given everyone an unfettered human will, it becomes the creatures responsibility to believe or not to trust in Christ as Savior.

Where in scripture do we ever see God limiting His power?

This verse: Isaiah 48:11 (ESV)
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another.
Is indicative of how God does things. He will not share His glory. For Him to abdicate certain things and leave them in the hands of man would do this very thing.

If God chose some and damned others, at will, we could readily say that He subverted their thinking and will, in fact, their entire being by sovereignly electing them to Heaven and Hell.

I think, again, that you misunderstand what really happens in election. You are misrepresenting the Calvinist position. We do not say that God subverts our will. No. He enables our will to choose Him. This is a huge difference.

This is becoming a well-used analogy on this board but, here it goes again:

Most people think that God is the one who stops us from running out into the proverbial traffic and being hit by a car and killed. In actuality, because the Bible says we are already dead, God is the One who walks amongst the dead and revives some of them according to His good pleasure.

npetrely has said this:

You have a habit of claiming scripture says things without actually providing any chapters and verses.

I tend to agree with him. It would be helpful to us--all of us--if you were to include chapter and verse.

Have a good day!

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Ok, then please explain to me what you mean when you use the term "premissive will." Thanks.

I don't use the term "premissive will". Since you have said that twice, I have to wonder if you're misspelling it or if you are talking about something altogether different. If you are simply misspelling it and are referring to "permissive will", then I would define that as what God does not specifically direct but foreknows and deliberately permits in order to accomplish His purpose.

"Permissively desires" implies that the event, even in isolation, is something He desires to occur. "Permissive will" implies that the thing itself is not an event God would desire if taken in isolation, but since it serves God's purpose in the long term, it is worth permitting.

For example, God permits someone to harm one of His children without cause because He intends to use that event to strengthen His child's faith. He foresees it and, by permitting it, foreordains it to occur because it serves His purpose.

Either way, God is in control, since He is not obliged to permit anything at all.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I think there is a world of difference between the Almighty power of God and the absolute glory of His Being. The whole fact that He tailors His power as He deals with human beings is a clear fact. His hand of discipline in the Christian life has been trimmed back when perhaps we deserved even greater punishment/discipline in our lives. When He has disciplined us He could have taken our lives in death with no less ability used. In fact, His power cannot in one sense be used, because His power is infinite.

No one can take away His resplendent glory that He is clothed with at the Father's right hand in Heaven.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
I don't use the term "premissive will". Since you have said that twice, I have to wonder if you're misspelling it or if you are talking about something altogether different.

No that's a common misspelling for me because my left pointer is faster than my left middle finger

If you are simply misspelling it and are referring to "permissive will", then I would define that as what God does not specifically direct but foreknows and deliberately permits in order to accomplish His purpose.

"Permissively desires" implies that the event, even in isolation, is something He desires to occur. "Permissive will" implies that the thing itself is not an event God would desire if taken in isolation, but since it serves God's purpose in the long term, it is worth permitting.

I lump the two together. What God permits that brings him pleasure and what God permits that doesn't necessarily bring him pleasure are all apart of his "permissive will." I used the word "desire" to show that it was God's pleasure in regard to those being saved as seen in 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Matt. 23:37.

Also, you could say God desires for man to obey his commandments, but he doesn't sovereignly will that it will happen. The would be under his "permissive will."

For example, God permits someone to harm one of His children without cause because He intends to use that event to strengthen His child's faith. He foresees it and, by permitting it, foreordains it to occur because it serves His purpose.

Earlier you said that which is permitted may not be "directed." And now you say its ordained. How do you differeciate between directed and ordained?

Either way, God is in control, since He is not obliged to permit anything at all.

God can be in "control" without being the cause of the events under his permissive will. That's a paradox worthy of acceptation

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I think there is a world of difference between the Almighty power of God and the absolute glory of His Being. The whole fact that He tailors His power as He deals with human beings is a clear fact. His hand of discipline in the Christian life has been trimmed back when perhaps we deserved even greater punishment/discipline in our lives. When He has disciplined us He could have taken our lives in death with no less ability used. In fact, His power cannot in one sense be used, because His power is infinite.

No one can take away His resplendent glory that He is clothed with at the Father's right hand in Heaven.

Ray,

You are confusing the difference between God's Grace and God's Power.

Of course we live by, as a gift of, God's grace. However, that does not mean that He removes some of His power from Himself.

God does not limit His "omni's" in any way--With the possible exception of the "God-Man."

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Ray Berrian]

Archangel,

I agree with your post dated March 18 at 11:33 p.m. My post previous to yours said, 'In fact, His power cannot in one sense be used, because His power is infinite.

Ray

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Archangel,

I agree with your post dated March 18 at 11:33 p.m. My post previous to yours said, 'In fact, His power cannot in one sense be used, because His power is infinite.

Ray

Good day Ray!

Ok, maybe I misunderstood.....Ok......I still don't understand. Would you, for my sake, explain the quote of yours that you reposted?

Thanks!

Archangel

 

[russell55]

Earlier you said that which is permitted may not be "directed." And now you say its ordained. How do you differeciate between directed and ordained?

Here is where a lot of the confusion in this conversation lies, I think. Ordained (or decreed) according to the definitions used by most Calvinists means that God has decided that something WILL happen. It doesn't really say anything about whether that event will be directly caused by God, or permitted by God.

At least some arminian systematic theologians use these terms this way, too. An arminian order of decrees that I saw somewhere or another has "Permit fall" as one of the decrees, exactly the same language that both supra and infra calvinism use in the decrees. The fall is decreed (or ordained) by permission under all three systems.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by russell55:
Here is where a lot of the confusion in this conversation lies, I think. Ordained (or decreed) according to the definitions used by most Calvinists means that God has decided that something WILL happen. It doesn't really say anything about whether that event will be directly caused by God, or permitted by God.

At least some arminian systematic theologians use these terms this way, too. An arminian order of decrees that I saw somewhere or another has "Permit fall" as one of the decrees, exactly the same language that both supra and infra calvinism use in the decrees. The fall is decreed (or ordained) by permission under all three systems.

I can accept that, except for the word ordained you put in parenthsis in the last sentence. But did you understand the problem I was having with Nick's reasoning?

He seemed to be saying that because God foreknows and permits all things then he must ordain all things, thus meaning God had to ordain sin. That's not a word I would choose because its the same word that Calvinists also use in regard to saving the elect. I don't see that God ordained sin as in causing it any more than I would say that God ordained the salvation of a few as in causing it while leaving the rest without hope.

But if you reason that God "ordains" all things that He foreknows then you must believe that he ordains all things, even sin. If ordains means "to cause" I have a problem with that. Can you understand why I would think when a Calvinist uses the word ordain he would mean "to cause" since Calvinists often say God foreordained the salvation of the elect?

 

[russell55]

If ordains means "to cause" I have a problem with that. Can you understand why I would think when a Calvinist uses the word ordain he would mean "to cause" since Calvinists often say God foreordained the salvation of the elect?

But ordain (at least as many people seem to use it) doesn't necessarily mean that God is the direct cause of something. It just means that an event is included in His plan for human history. It is in His blueprint for the course of history. An ordained event certainly may be directly caused by God, meaning that it is worked by His agency; but it also may be permitted (or indirectly caused) by God, meaning that it is not worked by His agency, but by agency from outside of God. It is indirectly caused by God at least in the sense that He knows what the outside agent will do, could prevent it, but makes a decision to allow it for a good purpose.

So God does foreordain the salvation of the elect. He plans for it to happen, and He works it by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

He also foreordained what happened to Joseph. He planned for it to happen--He knew what Joseph's brothers would do, and He made a decision to allow it to happen because He had a good purpose to bring about through that evil act. The act was not carried out by the agency of the Holy Spirit, but by the agency of Joseph's brother, who acted according to the envy that was in their hearts; but nevertheless it was an event that was in God's blueprint for the course of human history. It was the way He chose to preserve His people, and also work the foreshadowing picture of Christ's redemption by bringing the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by russell55:
But ordain (at least as many people seem to use it) doesn't necessarily mean that God is the direct cause of something. It just means that an event is included in His plan for human history. It is in His blueprint for the course of history. An ordained event certainly may be directly caused by God, meaning that it is worked by His agency; but it also may be permitted (or indirectly caused) by God, meaning that it is not worked by His agency, but by agency from outside of God. It is indirectly caused by God at least in the sense that He knows what the outside agent will do, could prevent it, but makes a decision to allow it for a good purpose.

I can agree with that now that I understand "to ordain" doesn't necessarily mean to cause.

So God does foreordain the salvation of the elect. He plans for it to happen, and He works it by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

I would say God does foreordain the salvation of those who believe in the since that you have just described: But ordain (at least as many people seem to use it) doesn't necessarily mean that God is the direct cause of something.

He plans for the means of the gospel by the power of the HS being presented to those he elected to hear it, which since the coming of Christ is clearly the world.

For example, Jonah was ordained (as in caused) to go to Ninevah to proclaim a God's message, therefore we could say Ninevah was elected to hear and granted an opportunity for repentance. Nivevah was ordained (as in permitted) to repent and then fall away. But, I don't believe God was the direct cause of either their repentance nor their falling away, he premitted it, but He didn't directly cause it.

Do you see my distinction. I believe God "causes" the means to bring the gospel which is empowered by the HS as is seen in the supernatural means he uses to call the apostles, but because of His own will He has allowed or "permitted" us to chose whether or not to accept that gospel as truth and follow it. I would also add to that; God "causes" the results of those who do believe by "ordaining" (as in causing) the indwelling of the HS as a seal gaurenteeing their inheritance, sancitification, and glorification. So, its like the old airplane illustration: God causes, as in creates, the plane and determines it route but He "permits" "whosoever" to board the plane.

Why do I make that distinction? Because it reconciles those passages which teach that man must believe in Christ as if that is really an option for those who hear the gospel rather than creating a seemly deceptive, unnessary and disunifing paradox.

Since the Bible does say "whosoever believes" and "everyone who believes" and "Any one who..." we must assume that "whosoever," "everyone," and "any one," have that capasity unless scripture clearly teaches us that they don't have that ability. To my knowledge the scripture never teaches that anyone is unable to believe the gospel with the exception of those who were temporarily hardened by God for a special purpose.