Let's Cut to the Chase -- Does God Will Rebellion Against Himself?

[Benjamin]

A permanent state of being does not prove there is no past, present, or future in regards to created time and in association with the nature of God which includes two natures but one divine substance, the nature of Jesus, the Son of God, is that He was fully human and fully divine and this existence being Omnisciently known by God from everlasting eternity does not change the Triune nature that God exists which was manifested in these last times for us, beginning in creation, within TIME.

The nature of the Father differs from the nature of the Son, if one were to say the Son is the Father it would then be heretical as it denies the Trinity. IMO this would also apply to the Calvinist way of thinking that would otherwise rationally conclude that we are predestined in the Father, by a first cause, that is without the Way provided IN the nature of the Son, by free will, within time.

Devine attributes remain unchanging, but creation did not always exist, the second Person of the Trinity added a human nature to the divine nature, within created TIME. Note I used the word “added” rather than “emptied” in regards of Kenosis Christology staying within the context of Phil 2.


“Morris claims that certain "conditions or requisites of divinity, the properties ingredient in or constitutive of deity, are not simply the divine attributes such as omniscient or omnipresence (as standardly analyzed), but rather are properties composed of these attributes qualified by kenotic limitationproperties." “For example, omniscience would be qualified as the "property of being omniscient-unless-freely-and-temporarily-choosing-to-be-otherwise."


Unquestionably, another type of divine knowledge as in middle knowledge is seen throughout scripture and the omnipotent ability of God to freely chose to see other than omnisciently IN the Son during time is seen in Mark 13:32. This knowledge could continue in the "risen" Son to fulfill promise to all God's creatures in creation as designed with free will. 2Pet 3:9

God has the sovereign ability to freely choose to exist within time and does in the nature of the Son, He being the “Way” to the Father within created time. I would like to see any non-Calvinist explain free will without man being predestined IN Christ WITHIN time. If so maybe I’ll put on my Calvie shirt and show the Calvinists how to deal with you…NOT!

Cutting to the chase…yea RIGHT!
I think I’ll just join the others now…

 

[Rippon]

Calvinists are constantly charged with going beyond the Scripture and waxing philosophical . But I see too many nonCals here going into the speculative realm -- and many are too man-centered .

Brandon C. Jones , on page 1 , post #5 referenced Paul Helm's thoughts on the matter of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge . It's way over my head . But Helm says there is no such thing as CMK -- it is only a theological opinion . He goes further and says that it is a "Jesuit device designed to accommodate libertarian freedom . "

There will be a book coming out soon ( if not already ) called "Perspectives On The Doctrine Of God : Four Views " . Roger Olson ( have one of his books ) who represents Arminianism ; John Sanders - who is an open theist ; Bruce Ware -- who takes the postion of a "Modified Calvinist" and Paul Helm -- who keeps to the historical Calvinist view . Perhaps this book will be just the thing to shed some light on the various views and determine what view is the most biblical .

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry

, you stated, of Revelation 13:8, "Clearly that is a statement of intention, seen as complete in teh mind of God, yet not having taken place yet. This is pretty common in Scripture, particularly in prophetic passages. It is hardly relevant to the question at hand here."

I disagree. The statement is given about Christ in the past tense as an accomplished act, not simply as an intention. It still had to be worked out in time, yes, but that did not make it any the less real in fact. This is the reason Job could state that he knew his Redeemer lived. Redemption was already a fact in eternity.

Yes, which proves serious problems for your position. God redeemed people before there was ever sin, which means that there was no chance Adam was not going to sin, which means that by your definition he had no free will. He had to sin, or the redemption planned and accomplihsed before time, was meaningless.

But the truth is that the redemption really wasn't accomplished before time. That makes no sense. The use of a past tense in the Bible is fairly common to refer to a future event, particularly in the OT prophets.

Thus, although murder was in the hearts of those who hated and crucified Him, you will note that no one had to break His legs to hasten His death. He was already dead, by His own will and power, as He had stated would happen.

He died through loss of blood probably, among other causes. The life of the flesh is in the blood, the loss of blood took his life. That is the whole point behind the shedding of his blood for forgiveness. But the truth is that when you lie about somebody to get them condemned and when you nail them to a cross unjustly to kill them, and they die from that, you are guilty of murder.

no one killed Jesus although the desire is held against them in Acts as murder.

The Scripture says nothing about desire. It says,

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Acts 3:15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.

At this point, you are contradicting the clear statements of Scripture. Why? I can't figure it out.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Benjamin.

The nature of the Father differs from the nature of the Son, if one were to say the Son is the Father it would then be heretical as it denies the Trinity.

And if you don't you deny the Oneness of God. ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

IMO this would also apply to the Calvinist way of thinking that would otherwise rationally conclude that we are predestined in the Father...

Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
JN 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

“For example, omniscience would be qualified as the "property of being omniscient-unless-freely-and-temporarily-choosing-to-be-otherwise."

It is impossible to be Sovereign in the dark.

john.

 

[Benjamin]

Hello Benjamin.

And if you don't you deny the Oneness of God. ISA 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Hey John,

That goes along fine with what I was saying.

Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
JN 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

Yep, believe every word of it, along with:

(Eph 1:13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

It is impossible to be Sovereign in the dark.

Who's to say Jesus was/is in the dark? How well is your C/definition of sovereignty fitting with:

(Mar 13:32) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

[gerald285]

The answer is yes, men do things against God's will. God does not always get His will according to scripture.

2Pe 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.

We know that all will not come to repentance.

Let us just cut to the chase. I have read numerous threads on numerous 'Christian forums, all of which boil down to this:

We are discussing the various rebellions of sinful man against the Will of God...
and someone says, at the end of the day, "but it is God's Plan"​

There are a 1001 variants and nuances of this argument. But, at the end of the day, it all boils down to, the Israelites (say) rebel against YHWH in favor of Ba'al & Asherah worship (say) which leads to them being punished by God's Wrath in the form of Sargon II and Nebuchadrezzar.... but that is all according to God's Plan.

So, once and for all, does mankind ever actually rebel against the Will of YHWH-Elohim? Does mankind ever actually do anything that YHWH-God doesn't wish/will/desire? Or, is every decision mankind makes always in strict accordance with God's (mysterious) plan?

 

[Andy T.]

The answer is yes, men do things against God's will. God does not always get His will according to scripture.

2Pe 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.

We know that all will not come to repentance.

That's a pretty straight-forward answer. But it is incomplete. I assume you hold to a free will understanding. But even in the free will understanding of things, you have to admit that God's will of decree is ultimately accomplished. The common interpretation of II Peter 3:9 is that the free will of men is what causes them to not repent (that's even my interpretation). And the free-willer goes on to say that it was God's will (of decree) that people should choose him freely. So when someone rejects Him, then it has not thwarted God's will of decree, because that person chose by their own free will and it was God's will that they should choose freely.

That's why Calvinist and non-Calvinists have to admit that there are different aspects of "God's will". In one sense, his will is not fulfilled when someone sins, but in another sense it was certainly his will that someone sinned, otherwise he would have stopped them from sinning. No matter what one's view of free will is, you have to deal with these tensions.

 

[gerald285]

Hello Andy,
I am afraid that I do not totally agree with you on your understanding. I do not believe that it is ever God's will that anyone sin and I would never even think of such to be true under any circumstance. I believe that His will can be thwarted. Now I do not believe that what He has ordained can be thwarted, but in those cases where He has made clear His will and yet left mankind the ability bring them about without His direct ordaining of such, we can choose to thwart them or obey His will for us. I do not believe that this contradicts His sovereignty. Rather what we see is his Sovereignty as well as His choice to allow other beings to make choices even if they are not to His will.

That's a pretty straight-forward answer. But it is incomplete. I assume you hold to a free will understanding. But even in the free will understanding of things, you have to admit that God's will of decree is ultimately accomplished. The common interpretation of II Peter 3:9 is that the free will of men is what causes them to not repent (that's even my interpretation). And the free-willer goes on to say that it was God's will (of decree) that people should choose him freely. So when someone rejects Him, then it has not thwarted God's will of decree, because that person chose by their own free will and it was God's will that they should choose freely.

That's why Calvinist and non-Calvinists have to admit that there are different aspects of "God's will". In one sense, his will is not fulfilled when someone sins, but in another sense it was certainly his will that someone sinned, otherwise he would have stopped them from sinning. No matter what one's view of free will is, you have to deal with these tensions.

 

[Andy T.]

Hello Andy,
I am afraid that I do not totally agree with you on your understanding. I do not believe that it is ever God's will that anyone sin and I would never even think of such to be true under any circumstance. I believe that His will can be thwarted. Now I do not believe that what He has ordained can be thwarted, but in those cases where He has made clear His will and yet left mankind the ability bring them about without His direct ordaining of such, we can choose to thwart them or obey His will for us. I do not believe that this contradicts His sovereignty. Rather what we see is his Sovereignty as well as His choice to allow other beings to make choices even if they are not to His will.

So what you are saying is that it is God's will that his will be thwarted by giving people free will. Either way it comes back to God's will is done - either by himself or by his sheer love of free will that he allows in his creatures.