On the omniscience of God

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz, I am not asking you to believe me. Look at the scriptures of GOD himself, they will tell you the truth to what I have said.

Maybe if you gave me some examples.

 

[Clete]

I'm addressing this as it does a better job of carrying conversation. You know, I believe where I agree and disagree on our conversation, just.
I think keeping will: will is fine because I see it as you do as well. Double-pred Calvinists would also say 'just and only will.' A compatibilist view is seeing two things: God's design and sin, then trying to understand how anything 'can' thwart God's will. In this sense, you are on page with the double-predestinationists: One will, nothing else. Prescriptive and Decretive is more about the action separation of His will: Creating good, fixing what is not. Maybe still not good but I think it serviceable.

I don't think you're correct on the point about any Calvinist insisting on "one will, nothing else". One of the first places I can recall being exposed to this "perfect" vs. "permissive" will as it was termed at the time was in a Sunday school class where the teacher was the hardest core Calvinist that can exist. He eventually had be kicked out of the whole church because he was unable to overcome the exact issues I'm bringing up here.

Actually, when you say it, it makes sense and then you call it lunacy In the next few posts I'll watch and learn. This is a meaningful conversation. I'm not neglecting your former, I just want to gather thoughts productively. Please don't think I'm ignoring the former, it is just that I wouldn't be able to forward the conversation and I want it to keep going, even if I'm not an active participant briefly, I'm listening. -Lon

It's lunacy because if the dichotomy exists between what God wants and what God actually degrees then it says something about God! If the only thing that can happen is what God has decreed will happen then talking about what God wants to happen is first of all meaningless but more importantly, what God had made happen goes against, by definition, that which He desires. God is His own worst enemy.

The schizophrenic god of classical Christianity: "BOY! I sure do wish I could have figured out a way to plant a grape vineyard that produced good grapes because I really like a nice wine with my lamb meat! If only I had decreed to happen what I actually wanted to have happen, I'd be much happier about everything. As it is, I've really pissed myself off here!"​

 

[Lon]

I don't think you're correct on the point about any Calvinist insisting on "one will, nothing else". One of the first places I can recall being exposed to this "perfect" vs. "permissive" will as it was termed at the time was in a Sunday school class where the teacher was the hardest core Calvinist that can exist. He eventually had be kicked out of the whole church because he was unable to overcome the exact issues I'm bringing up here.

Realize double-pred Calvinists see it as you do, no decretive/prescriptive, just will. In a sense, the separation is used simply to understand 'difference': Wheat/Tares.

It's lunacy because if the dichotomy exists between what God wants and what God actually degrees then it says something about God! If the only thing that can happen is what God has decreed will happen then talking about what God wants to happen is first of all meaningless but more importantly, what God had made happen goes against, by definition, that which He desires. God is His own worst enemy.

Keep going with that thought for me: How sin if He doesn't desire it? I'd guess 'He didn't know' but that isn't quite right. The tree was in the Garden. If He 'willed' it, He could have set angels there in the first place. Etc. Would say God simply 'willed' their obedience? (yes, of course) If Why then, will us to have volition over the matter? (for me: we were created in His image/ a risk? Perhaps, but not quite as Sanders intimates. He had a plan already in place. Thus I see an 'if/then' in His will 1 that doesn't want them to do it (will) and a contingency (another against/in opposition to the will if you will. (just trying to give thoughts as/when you can answer, thanks).

The schizophrenic god of classical Christianity: "BOY! I sure do wish I could have figured out a way to plant a grape vineyard that produced good grapes because I really like a nice wine with my lamb meat! If only I had decreed to happen what I actually wanted to have happen, I'd be much happier about everything. As it is, I've really pissed myself off here!"​

Not quite following. Isn't it the same no matter who you are as a theologian? Granted I see this passage much differently (Isaiah singing to Yahweh).

 

[Clete]

Realize double-pred Calvinists see it as you do, no decretive/prescriptive, just will. In a sense, the separation is used simply to understand 'difference': Wheat/Tares.

Keep going with that thought for me: How sin if He doesn't desire it? I'd guess 'He didn't know' but that isn't quite right. The tree was in the Garden. If He 'willed' it, He could have set angels there in the first place. Etc. Would say God simply 'willed' their obedience? (yes, of course) If Why then, will us to have volition over the matter? (for me: we were created in His image/ a risk? Perhaps, but not quite as Sanders intimates. He had a plan already in place. Thus I see an 'if/then' in His will 1 that doesn't want them to do it (will) and a contingency (another against/in opposition to the will if you will. (just trying to give thoughts as/when you can answer, thanks).

Not quite following. Isn't it the same no matter who you are as a theologian? Granted I see this passage much differently (Isaiah singing to Yahweh).

I don't even understand what your question is, Lon.

It seems to me that you need to redefine "God's will" away from whatever it currently is in your mind to "what God desires", which is what it actually means.

Once you've done that answering the following questions becomes easy and intuitive...

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain offer a faulty sacrifice? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain murder righteous Abel? - NO!

Was it God's will that Pharaoh would refuse to allow Israel to leave Egypt? - NO!

Was it God's will that the Pharisees and lawyers would refuse to be baptized by Jesus? - NO!

Was it God's will that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed? - NO!

Was it God's will that Israel would reject the risen Jesus as their Messiah? - NO!

Was it God's will that the leaders of Israel have Stephen stoned? - NO!


If you read any of those questions and your mind went anywhere near a "YES!" answer, then you've been contaminated by Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.

 

[Derf]

I don't even understand what your question is, Lon.

It seems to me that you need to redefine "God's will" away from whatever it currently is in your mind to "what God desires", which is what it actually means.

Once you've done that answering the following questions becomes easy and intuitive...

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain offer a faulty sacrifice? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain murder righteous Abel? - NO!

Was it God's will that Pharaoh would refuse to allow Israel to leave Egypt? - NO!

Was it God's will that the Pharisees and lawyers would refuse to be baptized by Jesus? - NO!

Was it God's will that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed? - NO!

Was it God's will that Israel would reject the risen Jesus as their Messiah? - NO!

Was it God's will that the leaders of Israel have Stephen stoned? - NO!


If you read any of those questions and your mind went anywhere near a "YES!" answer, then you've been contaminated by Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.

And by Augustine and Calvin.

 

[Lon]

I don't even understand what your question is, Lon.

It seems to me that you need to redefine "God's will" away from whatever it currently is in your mind to "what God desires", which is what it actually means.

Let's take the definition a second: Desire, decision. While 'decision' to fix sin, it isn't desire. Really the two will idea is an attempt to show the difference and be clear about what will means in any instance given: Decision/desire.

Back to my question: If God just has will (decision) how could sin happen?

Once you've done that answering the following questions becomes easy and intuitive...

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain offer a faulty sacrifice? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain murder righteous Abel? - NO!

Was it God's will that Pharaoh would refuse to allow Israel to leave Egypt? - NO!

Was it God's will that the Pharisees and lawyers would refuse to be baptized by Jesus? - NO!

Was it God's will that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed? - NO!

Was it God's will that Israel would reject the risen Jesus as their Messiah? - NO!

Was it God's will that the leaders of Israel have Stephen stoned? - NO!

A similar question to ask connected: Why then did any of it happen? Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

If you read any of those questions and your mind went anywhere near a "YES!" answer, then you've been contaminated by Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.

So we don't answer the same way. That is fine. It 'looks' like prescriptive vs decretive will. "Do not eat of the tree." Decretive. Fix sin not wanted/willed. Prescriptive. I'm trying to entertain 'how would this work if I understood just 'one will?' I don't have the mindset to walk a mile in your thoughts. I'm not equipped to grasp how He only has "will" when one means desire, and the other, decision about what He doesn't want. It tends to be separated by verb/application in our camp. I'd need help understanding 'just will.' At this venture I'm not getting it, you'd have to be a bit pedantic if you've the patience. If not, it is no big deal. I just wanted to know. Thanks.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't even understand what your question is, Lon.

It seems to me that you need to redefine "God's will" away from whatever it currently is in your mind to "what God desires", which is what it actually means.

Once you've done that answering the following questions becomes easy and intuitive...

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain offer a faulty sacrifice? - NO!

Was it God's will that Cain murder righteous Abel? - NO!

Was it God's will that Pharaoh would refuse to allow Israel to leave Egypt? - NO!

Was it God's will that the Pharisees and lawyers would refuse to be baptized by Jesus? - NO!

Was it God's will that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed? - NO!

Was it God's will that Israel would reject the risen Jesus as their Messiah? - NO!

Was it God's will that the leaders of Israel have Stephen stoned? - NO!


If you read any of those questions and your mind went anywhere near a "YES!" answer, then you've been contaminated by Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.

That sounds like permissive will.

 

[Bladerunner]

Maybe if you gave me some examples.

ask away.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why then did any of it happen?

Because men are evil, and go against God's will.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Romans 9 is about Israel in rebellion against God, being used BY God in spite of their rebellion to bring the gospel to the world.

It is not about evil men in general being predestined by God to be evil.

Spoiler

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea:“I will call them My people, who were not My people,And her beloved, who was not beloved.” “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,‘You are not My people,’There they shall be called sons of the living God.” Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” And as Isaiah said before:“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,We would have become like Sodom,And we would have been made like Gomorrah.” What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection of Christ - I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the...

www.biblegateway.com

Just as God used Pharaoh in his rebellion to free Israel from Egypt, so too God uses Israel to bring the gospel to the world.

In other words, don't rip verses out of their proper context.

 

[Lon]

Romans 9 is about Israel in rebellion against God, being used BY God in spite of their rebellion to bring the gospel to the world.

It is not about evil men in general being predestined by God to be evil.

Spoiler

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He says also in Hosea:“I will call them My people, who were not My people,And her beloved, who was not beloved.” “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,‘You are not My people,’There they shall be called sons of the living God.” Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” And as Isaiah said before:“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,We would have become like Sodom,And we would have been made like Gomorrah.” What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection of Christ - I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the...

www.biblegateway.com

Just as God used Pharaoh in his rebellion to free Israel from Egypt, so too God uses Israel to bring the gospel to the world.

In other words, don't rip verses out of their proper context.

Context seems VERY clear to me:
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Jewish)
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of God, the One showing mercy. (Jewish)
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Egyptian)
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens. (at LEAST Jewish AND Egyptian by context, but I see as obviously overarching)
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? (Universal)
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way? (Universal)
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? (Jeremiah, but Universal in scope)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Context seems VERY clear to me:
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Jewish)
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of God, the One showing mercy. (Jewish)
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Egyptian)
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens. (at LEAST Jewish AND Egyptian by context, but I see as obviously overarching)
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? (Universal)
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way? (Universal)
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? (Jeremiah, but Universal in scope)

Again, the context, the very reason I quoted the ENTIRE chapter, not just a small portion of it, is Israel's rebellion against God. Go read the whole chapter again. It's in the spoiler.

The interlocutor of Romans 9 is a Jew who is asking why God has cut them off when they were promised a Kingdom. Hence the "pursuing righteousness through faith" vs "pursuing righteousness through works of the law."

<--- The most important!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Context seems VERY clear to me:
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Jewish)
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of God, the One showing mercy. (Jewish)
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Egyptian)
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens. (at LEAST Jewish AND Egyptian by context, but I see as obviously overarching)
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? (Universal)
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way? (Universal)
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? (Jeremiah, but Universal in scope)

 

[Clete]

And by Augustine and Calvin.

They were the mosquitos that transmitted the pagan Greek mind virus into the Christian population.

 

[Clete]

Let's take the definition a second: Desire, decision. While 'decision' to fix sin, it isn't desire. Really the two will idea is an attempt to show the difference and be clear about what will means in any instance given: Decision/desire.

So you're saying that God doesn't desire to fix the sin problem? That it wasn't God's desire to send His Son to die?

I'm not talking about "desire" is some sort of sensual sense. God desires righteousness and justice and He desires to be merciful. He did NOT desire to be merciful at the expense of being unjust, and so He figured out a way to be merciful while maintaining perfect righteousness and justice and then made the decision that the price was worth paying. The cost was God's life, with which He purchased the pearl of great price which was an eternal relationship with millions, perhaps billions, of the creatures that He created for the purpose of having a loving relationship with.

Back to my question: If God just has will (decision) how could sin happen?

The question makes no sense!

Sin is an action that is AGAINST God's will, Lon!

A similar question to ask connected: Why then did any of it happen? Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

The use of Romans 9 in this manner just wells up anger in me like little else can. It is blasphemy!

Romans 9 is NOT talking about individual people! If it were, it would be a valid argument! If it were, God would be an unjust tyrant. If it were, God would be the arsonist that sets your house on fire and expect worship because he pulled you from the fire that he set.

Romans 9 is about the cutting off of the nation of Israel in accordance with Jeremiah 18, which Paul references by bringing up the Potter and the clay. A reference his original audience would have understood intuitively, by the way.

As for the question about why did any of it happen, the answer is because God wants for the pinnacle of His creation to love Him and that couldn't have ever happened without Him taking the risk of that creation rejecting Him. Creating mankind was a risky move that God knew from the beginning might well cost Him His life but that, either way, in the end, it would be worth it.

So we don't answer the same way. That is fine. It 'looks' like prescriptive vs decretive will. "Do not eat of the tree." Decretive. Fix sin not wanted/willed. Prescriptive.

Stupidity is what it is! And no, Lon, it isn't fine. It isn't fine at all. These ideas have consequences. They impugn the reputation of God and do so for no reason at all other than to avoid conflict with Greek philosophical ideas about God that the bible doesn't support in any way and which are counter even to mere common sense.

I'm trying to entertain 'how would this work if I understood just 'one will?' I don't have the mindset to walk a mile in your thoughts.

That's because you are infected with the Neo-platonic mind virus that is Augustinian theology proper.

I'm not equipped to grasp how He only has "will" when one means desire, and the other, decision about what He doesn't want.

You are equipped you just don't want to do it. You have the ability but lack the will.

It tends to be separated by verb/application in our camp. I'd need help understanding 'just will.' At this venture I'm not getting it, you'd have to be a bit pedantic if you've the patience. If not, it is no big deal. I just wanted to know. Thanks.

I have to remember to keep my patience cranked to 11 here....

If you don't like the word "desire" then use the word "prefers" or "wants" or whatever. The point is that God does not decree everything that happens and so just delete that whole concept. There is what God would like to see happen and then there's what actually happens. Sometimes the two are the same, other times it's not. Sometimes - many times - God is forced to do certain things that He doesn't enjoy but that are necessary if He is to achieve the goals of salvation and defeating His enemies and concurring sin and death.

The point there being that when I say that God's will = "What God desires", I'm not talking about desire in terms of pleasure, necessarily. Once, when my oldest daughter was six years old, she told me a lie and I spanked her for it. I didn't enjoy spanking her, but I would have disliked having a dishonest daughter much more and so I chose to do the unpleasant short term thing for the long term good. Likewise, God didn't enjoy sacrificing His only begotten Son, but He preferred that to throwing the whole lot of humanity into Hell and so He chose to die willingly (John 10:17-18); He chose to endure the short term pain in order to gain the long term effect of saving and thus having an eternal relationship with those who would respond to Him in faith.

Do you see the point there? God's "will" works much like yours does, except that He doesn't have this awful flesh to deal with (Romans 7:19). Just as you want your children to grown up and make wise decisions, to love you and to do rightly, God wants you to be wise and to love Him and to do rightly. But God cannot make you love Him any more than you can make your child be honorable. You can do things to influence them but in the end it is their decision to make, and just as a parent doesn't make his child do foolish things, God does not make (decree) that we do foolish things either. It is NOT God's will that people do evil things. (Why, oh why, am I even having to say that?) Foolish people do foolish things and their doing so is in opposition to God's will, not because of it, as your use of Romans 9 would imply. Indeed, it is foolishness precisely because it is in opposition to God's will.

 

[Clete]

That sounds like permissive will.

That is what the Calvinists call "permissive will" which just means "everything that actually happens".

So, according the the Calvinist there is....

1. God's "perfect will" which is what God wants or would prefer to have happen.
2. God's "permissive will" which is what actually happens.

The problem there is that these same Calvinists believe that everything that actually happens is what God decreed to happen from before creation. Meaning that God decreed that things would happen that He'd prefer didn't happen. Or put another way, God willed things to happen against His will. Except that they teach that God did want it to happen and that's why He decreed it and so all the stuff in one category fits nicely in the other category because nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen, whether He likes it or not.

It's just absolutely complete and utter stupidity!


That is nearly verbatim what I said in a Sunday School class (well, minus that last sentence) which caused them to ask me to stop coming to the church!

 

[glorydaz]

ask away.

I asked for examples for what you said here….

the difference is that GOD gave Moses the Laws (Commandments)of the land. The was a preceptive command, where He wanted them (commanded)to follow but allowed them to choose whether to follow them or Not..​

Decretive will is where God issues a command and expects it to be followed without fail. These commands He does not allow the free will of Man to go against them without severe consequences.​

 

[Lon]

So you're saying that God doesn't desire to fix the sin problem? That it wasn't God's desire to send His Son to die?

Ah, I begin to see what you mean and it makes sense. Perhaps it is rather not will, but the execution of His will would be the better tack. Thank you for the thoughts. Your dialogue helps and appreciate it.

I'm not talking about "desire" is some sort of sensual sense. God desires righteousness and justice and He desires to be merciful. He did NOT desire to be merciful at the expense of being unjust, and so He figured out a way to be merciful while maintaining perfect righteousness and justice and then made the decision that the price was worth paying. The cost was God's life, with which He purchased the pearl of great price which was an eternal relationship with millions, perhaps billions, of the creatures that He created for the purpose of having a loving relationship with.

Right and so theologians have proffered and idea over the difference, but I begin to catch your meaning

The question makes no sense!

Sin is an action that is AGAINST God's will, Lon!

Yes, but even if inadvertently, you are making very good points for my mind's considerations. I think it correct, we aren't talking about 'will' but the will as it interacts. That is different. I'd intimate you could write a book that would sell, it is enlightening and all theologians would profit from the need (just saying it is a game-changer if done well).

The use of Romans 9 in this manner just wells up anger in me like little else can. It is blasphemy!

Romans 9 is NOT talking about individual people! If it were, it would be a valid argument! If it were, God would be an unjust tyrant. If it were, God would be the arsonist that sets your house on fire and expect worship because he pulled you from the fire that he set.

Romans 9 is about the cutting off of the nation of Israel in accordance with Jeremiah 18, which Paul references by bringing up the Potter and the clay. A reference his original audience would have understood intuitively, by the way.

As for the question about why did any of it happen, the answer is because God wants for the pinnacle of His creation to love Him and that couldn't have ever happened without Him taking the risk of that creation rejecting Him. Creating mankind was a risky move that God knew from the beginning might well cost Him His life but that, either way, in the end, it would be worth it.

Appreciate that. I don't necessarily agree, we all belong to Him, but appreciate your thoughts and points. I'm not altogether against your thought but yet see that we all are His "The earth is the Lord's and all therein." Granted it intimates something you don't espouse. I too believe as you every action of God is for love's sake.

Stupidity is what it is! And no, Lon, it isn't fine. It isn't fine at all. These ideas have consequences. They impugn the reputation of God and do so for no reason at all other than to avoid conflict with Greek philosophical ideas about God that the bible doesn't support in any way and which are counter even to mere common sense.

Realize I don't jump to the same conclusion you do. Literally this: I've a filter after 50 years with God that says "Will not the Lord do right?" I don't wrestle (sloppy) as I once did with "Why women and babies" as our nemesis Sword of Truth does. I rather implicitly know that God is good. It may 'look' like God does something wrong in intimation but I know better (again, perhaps have grown sloppy with the incredible giving away of doubt). I think in an overarching way, that umbrella has us both on the same page, however sloppily I arrived there.

That's because you are infected with the Neo-platonic mind virus that is Augustinian theology proper.


You are equipped you just don't want to do it. You have the ability but lack the will.


I have to remember to keep my patience cranked to 11 here....

If you don't like the word "desire" then use the word "prefers" or "wants" or whatever. The point is that God does not decree everything that happens and so just delete that whole concept. There is what God would like to see happen and then there's what actually happens. Sometimes the two are the same, other times it's not. Sometimes - many times - God is forced to do certain things that He doesn't enjoy but that are necessary if He is to achieve the goals of salvation and defeating His enemies and concurring sin and death.

The point there being that when I say that God's will = "What God desires", I'm not talking about desire in terms of pleasure, necessarily. Once, when my oldest daughter was six years old, she told me a lie and I spanked her for it. I didn't enjoy spanking her, but I would have disliked having a dishonest daughter much more and so I chose to do the unpleasant short term thing for the long term good. Likewise, God didn't enjoy sacrificing His only begotten Son, but He preferred that to throwing the whole lot of humanity into Hell and so He chose to die willingly (John 10:17-18); He chose to endure the short term pain in order to gain the long term effect of saving and thus having an eternal relationship with those who would respond to Him in faith.

Do you see the point there? God's "will" works much like yours does, except that He doesn't have this awful flesh to deal with (Romans 7:19). Just as you want your children to grown up and make wise decisions, to love you and to do rightly, God wants you to be wise and to love Him and to do rightly. But God cannot make you love Him any more than you can make your child be honorable. You can do things to influence them but in the end it is their decision to make, and just as a parent doesn't make his child do foolish things, God does not make (decree) that we do foolish things either. It is NOT God's will that people do evil things. (Why, oh why, am I even having to say that?) Foolish people do foolish things and their doing so is in opposition to God's will, not because of it, as your use of Romans 9 would imply. Indeed, it is foolishness precisely because it is in opposition to God's will.

I think I do. I picked up on it from your first sentence and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

 

[Bladerunner]

I asked for examples for what you said here….

the difference is that GOD gave Moses the Laws (Commandments)of the land. The was a preceptive command, where He wanted them (commanded)to follow but allowed them to choose whether to follow them or Not..​

Decretive will is where God issues a command and expects it to be followed without fail. These commands He does not allow the free will of Man to go against them without severe consequences.​

one of the biggest that comes to mind is Moses at the Horab getting water for his people. I am sure you remember...that the first time, Moses obeyed GOD by striking the Rock as He commanded. (

In the near future, Moses got another chance to get water for His people at Kadesh....where God told Moses to speak to the Rock, yet Moses was angry at GOD and proceeded to strike the Rock instead. For this failure to obey, Moses could not cross the river Jordan. (Num 20, KJV)

There are many events that demonstrate the Decretal Commands of God., to include the command God gave to Arron about the procedure to be done in the temple and holy of hollies...While Arron did inform everyone including His two sons, they departed from what God wanted to what their free will thought was right and paid dearly for it...God killed them as they left the temple. (Lev 16:1).

Hope this helps.

 

[glorydaz]

one of the biggest that comes to mind is Moses at the Horab getting water for his people. I am sure you remember...that the first time, Moses obeyed GOD by striking the Rock as He commanded. (

In the near future, Moses got another chance to get water for His people at Kadesh....where God told Moses to speak to the Rock, yet Moses was angry at GOD and proceeded to strike the Rock instead. For this failure to obey, Moses could not cross the river Jordan. (Num 20, KJV)

There are many events that demonstrate the Decretal Commands of God., to include the command God gave to Arron about the procedure to be done in the temple and holy of hollies...While Arron did inform everyone including His two sons, they departed from what God wanted to what their free will thought was right and paid dearly for it...God killed them as they left the temple. (Lev 16:1).

Hope this helps.

Well, it does help to show that God is a strict Father. One warning should be enough.