Are there two wills in God?

[Gavin]

I believe that there are two wills in God, or rather, two ways of willing. One can call them God's sovereign will and his moral will, or there are many other names for them.

God's moral will is that he desires all men everywhere to repent and be saved. God' sovereign will is that he desires to save only his chosen elect, to the glory of his sovereign and eternal choice in election.

As I Howard Marshall said (not a Calvinist), "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will."

I believe that the two wills in God theory is proven by theological deduction - i.e., one passage says God wants all men to be saved, another says God freely chooses to save only some.

Would anyone like to discuss this with me?

[Hitch]

Despite a lifetime of efforts to the contrary the thief on the cross spent his last days exactly where he needed to be and exactly where God had led him.

take care

Hitch

[Sozo]

03-11-2003 @ 02:13 PM
Gavin:

I believe that the two wills in God theory is proven by theological deduction - i.e., one passage says God wants all men to be saved, another says God freely chooses to save only some.


I forget, was Jim Carrey "dumb" or "dumber"

[Captain Ochre]

I believe you've got it covered.
There is, of course a third "will of God", and that is God's "perfect" will: that perfect plan for your life that you need to find out and follow: go to the right school (or else), marry the right person (or else), etc.
That third one is the least scriptural or at least the least normative, imo. Hence, I recommend "Decisionmaking in the Will of God" (Multonomah Press)--can't recall the author off the top of my head, though.

[Gavin]

I forget, was Jim Carrey "dumb" or "dumber"
Does this help you remember?

[Sozo]

I'll try again... What verse says that God only chooses to save some?

[Hitch]

John 6:45
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(KJV)

Its evident that all didnt get the ears that worked.


But it all comes in a set. If you dont get the ears that work ,the eyes inyour set dont work iether.


John 12:39-41
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
(KJV)

Take care

Hitch

[Gavin]

Sozo,

Just for starters

I Samuel 2:25
"If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

[undead]

03-11-2003 @ 11:12 PM
Gavin:
I Samuel 2:25
"If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

Gods' desires are not always fulfilled, but God's will is. I do not think God's will can be equated with his desires. God desires are expressed in his commandments. God's commandments to men are expressed both in his law, and in the gospel, which is no more than a command to repent (Act 17:30). Obviously the issuing of God's commandments are in accordance with his purpose, but equally men's disobedience is in accordance within God's purpose.

Although one can, as a matter of construction of English, claim God has two wills, the sense of the word "will" is radically different in the two cases. In one case it infers God's "purpose". In the other, the fruit of the commandment. That only the remnant will obey the commandment is known in advance, even before the commandment is issued.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Just for starters

I Samuel 2:25
"If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

Once AGAIN, instead of throwing out a verse, you need to say what you think it means and the conclusions you draw from it. Then we'll discuss the possible translations, Hebrew idioms, and your theories.

If you were in my class, you'd learn to stop proof-texting. But perhaps that's all Piper has to teach.

[PuritanD]

03-11-2003 @ 04:45 PM
Captain Ochre:

That third one is the least scriptural or at least the least normative, imo. Hence, I recommend "Decisionmaking in the Will of God" (Multonomah Press)--can't recall the author off the top of my head, though.

The author is Friesen

[GrayPilgrim]

03-12-2003 @ 12:40 AM
Arminian:

Gavin,



Once AGAIN, instead of throwing out a verse, you need to say what you think it means and the conclusions you draw from it. Then we'll discuss the possible translations, Hebrew idioms, and your theories.

If you were in my class, you'd learn to stop proof-texting. But perhaps that's all Piper has to teach.

Piper?:huh: Gavin's not in/from Minesota!

[Solly]

Just for the record, No.

[Gavin]

Arminian,
Once AGAIN, instead of throwing out a verse, you need to say what you think it means and the conclusions you draw from it. Then we'll discuss the possible translations, Hebrew idioms, and your theories.

If you were in my class, you'd learn to stop proof-texting. But perhaps that's all Piper has to teach.
Your tone is characteristically superior and terse. But I thank you for your response and look forward to dialogue with you. :smile:

I did not comment on the verse for two reasons: (1) I was merely giving it in response to Sozo's request for such a verse, and (2) it is pretty much self-explanatory (at least as it pertains to our purposes here).

25 If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him? His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

In context, Eli's sons are showing disregard for the Lord, sleeping with women at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and showing contempt by disrupting the priest's sacrifices. They were such wicked men that verse 17 can say, "this sin of the young men was very great in the LORD's sight, for they were treating the LORD's offering with contempt."

Eli tries to rebuke his sons and steer them away from their wicked deeds. His rhetorical question, "If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?", combined with verse 17 show that the sins of his sons were against the Lord himself and would be judged by him. Their sins were not merely forgivable sins that they could ignore but still go on in a right relationship with God - these sins called into question there very standing before God.

But Eli's sins don't listen to the rebuke - why? Is it because of their own free will and rejection of what God wants for them? No. It is because it was God's will that they be put to death.

Here the conjunction "for" is most important. It shows that God's will to kill Eli's sons was not conditional on their response - exactly the opposite. Eli's sons hardened their hearts "for" God wanted them to die. The verse shows God's sovereign decision and will to harden some to damnation for his ultimate purposes.

The death that the Lord wishes surely cannot be restricted to mere physical death here. For one thing, as earlier noted, the rebuke that Eli's sons reject is calling into question their very standing before God, and the inability of an intercessor in such an instance of sin. The rejection of Eli's rebuke therefore, is a rejection of repentance itself. Eli's sons are not right in their standing before God, so to "die" at such a point would have more than merely physical, temporal repurcussions.

[Gavin]

Solly,
Just for the record, No.

What is this in response to?

[Gavin]

Also Arminian,
perhaps that's all Piper has to teach.
Do you disagree with people who happen to be Calvinists or because they are Calvinists?

How can you criticize Calvinists so recklessly? Even if he is wrong about Calvinism, based on my observations of his preaching I would say he is a very sincere man of God.

Your criticism of Piper is unfounded.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Here the conjunction "for" is most important. It shows that God's will to kill Eli's sons was not conditional on their response - exactly the opposite. Eli's sons hardened their hearts "for" God wanted them to die. The verse shows God's sovereign decision and will to harden some to damnation for his ultimate purposes.

You're still failing my class because you did not introduce your premise or conclusion. You simply quote the verse and make come comments about it.

I don't have any reference materials with me, so I won't comment too much. I remember Kaiser taking about this verse in class once. The particle is somtimes translated "therefore," and also Hebrew idiom also often describes the result as a cause, so caution needs to be used.

However, I can think of a number of times when divine judgement was passed while people were still alive. The wrath of God is often given as a reason for turning back, but when it becomes full there is no turning back.

[Arminian]

Do you disagree with people who happen to be Calvinists or because they are Calvinists?

How can you criticize Calvinists so recklessly? Even if he is wrong about Calvinism, based on my observations of his preaching I would say he is a very sincere man of God.

Your criticism of Piper is unfounded.

How did I criticize him? I've seen the link you used in the past and it is loaded with proof texts. You know what I think about that method.

[Arminian]

Gavin's not in/from Minesota

Only in spirit.

[Jaltus]

I think I can unequivocably say that if you are an Arminian, you are unlikely to be a big fan of Piper's (he seems only a step shy of becoming the next RC Sproul, and I do not mean as a biblicist).

Gavin,

Are they any lexical ties you would like to make? In other words, can God's will(s) be thwarted? The reason I ask is that it is a very fast and loose way of defining two wills, in that you can say if it worked out, it was His determinative will, but if it did not then it must not have been. That is a cricular argument at best (since you are using those instances to show in the first place that He has two wills).

How do you know it is not one will?

[Arminian]

I think I can unequivocably say that if you are an Arminian, you are unlikely to be a big fan of Piper's (he seems only a step shy of becoming the next RC Sproul, and I do not mean as a biblicist).

True. On the other hand, some of my favorite people are Calvinists. Moo is near the top of my list for being a great human being and a lover of the truth of Scripture.

Samir M., at TEDS is also on my list. You gotta love that guy. I miss his kids, too.

[Gavin]

Arminian,

thanks again for your replies. They are engaging as usual.
You're still failing my class . . . .
Well, I am not in your class.
. . . because you did not introduce your premise or conclusion. You simply quote the verse and make come comments about it.
Introducing an argument your way is not the only way to do it. You are not the sole arbiter of truth.

My point is that I Samuel 2 provides an instance where we see the soveriegn or hidden will of God. The argument is relatively simple and the premise is clear. I did not feel that a clear conclusion was needed, but that seems to be a matter of opinion.
I don't have any reference materials with me, so I won't comment too much. I remember Kaiser taking about this verse in class once. The particle is somtimes translated "therefore," and also Hebrew idiom also often describes the result as a cause, so caution needs to be used.
Those would be solid points if you can give them a good argument for it. I will look forward to hearing more if/when you have your reference materials.
However, I can think of a number of times when divine judgement was passed while people were still alive. The wrath of God is often given as a reason for turning back, but when it becomes full there is no turning back.
The issue is not that they were still alive when they underwent judgement, but that God hardened them not to respond to Eli's rebuke because it was his sovereign will. Not the time of judgement but the cause of judgement.
How did I criticize him?
Well, that bit about all he has to offer is the proof text method.
I've seen the link you used in the past and it is loaded with proof texts. You know what I think about that method.
He uses specific verses to prove his points, but I don't think he takes them out of context.

Are you sure that writing off Piper's argument as a bunch of proof-texts is the most fair and thorough way to respond to his argument?

The link is here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html) for all interested.

[Gavin]

Arminian,
Moo is near the top of my list for being a great human being and a lover of the truth of Scripture.
The guy at Wheaton?

Hey, Wheaton for graduate school in theology - pretty impressive faculty, huh? What do you guys think? I am considering going there very seriously.:huh:

[Gavin]

I think I can unequivocably say that if you are an Arminian, you are unlikely to be a big fan of Piper's (he seems only a step shy of becoming the next RC Sproul, and I do not mean as a biblicist).
Everyone I know likes Sproul and especially Piper but then I am pretty much surrounded by Calvinists.

Gavin,

Are they any lexical ties you would like to make? In other words, can God's will(s) be thwarted? The reason I ask is that it is a very fast and loose way of defining two wills, in that you can say if it worked out, it was His determinative will, but if it did not then it must not have been. That is a cricular argument at best (since you are using those instances to show in the first place that He has two wills).

How do you know it is not one will?
Okay, great question Jaltus.

I will answer as best I understand you, and then you can tell me how wide I am from the mark of what you are looking for.

I would say that God's moral will is revealed in Scripture. For example, the ten commandments. We know when something is God's moral will because God has revealed it unto man through the gospel. God's moral will is that all men everywhere does what is right, repent of sin, turn to him in truth, establish and propagate the church, etc. These are the things that, in I. Howard Marshall's words, God would like to see happen.

Alternatively, I would say that God's hidden or secret of sovereign will (pick your word) is hidden and we cannot know what it is (although we do know that it exists from Scripture). At the same time that God would like it no one to commit sin, he also has a specific plan and will that men sin by crucifying Christ (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Isaiah 53:10, Hebrews 2:10, etc.), to further his sovereign and redemptive plan for the human race. This is God's will or plan for all of human history, which includes human decisions but does not take away moral accountability for those decisions - "the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). I would say that in a sense, it was God's "will" that Adam and Eve should fall in the garden, because he had a specific redemptive plan for mankind. But surely this was not God's moral will! I would say that God's sovereign will cannot be thwarted.

I am fairly sure that is not the kind of answer you were looking for, but I hope at least it is a starting point for further clarification and discussion.

Thanks again and God bless,
Gavin

[Gavin]

To all interested:

This is just a general point about my defense of Piper.

My disgruntledness at Piper being said to have nothing to offer but proof-texts (or Spurgeon being called a master of demagoguery, as I have also heard) is based on my personal appreciation for the devotional works of these men. I have benefited tremoundously from Piper's devotional books (especially _Desiring God_) and sermons, and I read a part of Spurgeon's collected devotional writings, _Morning and Evening_, in the morning for my devotions. My benefit from these men rarely pertains to their adherance to Calvinism. And it often seems that their works at large are being written off because people disagree with there stance on reformed soteriology.

Blessings,
Gavin

[GrayPilgrim]

Well I don't think too much of Kaiser so :wink: (I really don't but it has as much merit as your dislike of Piper--none)

כי is one of the most convaluted and misued particles in the OT. It's almost like theaorist in Greek, or the magic bullet. Both uses Arminian spoke of are missing in van der Merwe, Naude and Kroeze's A Biblical Hebrew Reference Gramamr, and I would say it fall under:

[Marks a clause that provides a reason (co-ordinating conjunction)

(i) Provides the reason for a state of affairs by marking the actual reason with כי. The causal realtion is to natural laws. כי may be translated [i]because

(ii) Provides the reason for a preceding expression or expressions by marking with כי the motivation given by speakers to explain something they have said. The causal realtion is thus not due to natural laws is due to the speaker's own reasoning. כי can usually also be translated for

Now given the context I would translate כי as beacuse in this verse and I would say therefore "is right out".

GP

[GrayPilgrim]

Please watch the personal attacks and impugning other posters intellectual acumen as it is not conducive to debate and discussion.

GP

[Solly]

03-12-2003 @ 04:54 PM
Gavin:

Solly said No

What is this in response to?

The poll. Remember?
Gee, you in-tuh-lek-chuls have trouble keeping on topic.

[Arminian]

Gray,

Both uses Arminian spoke of

Actually, only one of my comments involved the particle. The other concerned idiom, which is without regard to the particle.

Either way, it doesn't matter with regard to my conclusion.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

The issue is not that they were still alive when they underwent judgement, but that God hardened them not to respond to Eli's rebuke because it was his sovereign will. Not the time of judgement but the cause of judgement.

I'm sorry, but the context indicates that it was at the time of judgment. God's anger was directed at their prior behavior, and now God's wrath was full. It wasn't capricious act. The verses that follow describe the results of that judgment in detail, including the breaking of the covenant God made with Eli's house to be a priesthood "forever" being announced, and the death penalty of the sons. "Forever" didn't last too long.

[Arminian]

Spurgeon being called a master of demagoguery, as I have also heard

Yep. That's what I heard.

[Arminian]

What do you guys think? I am considering going there very seriously.

We'll meet for lunch every day!

[Jaltus]

Everyone I know likes Sproul and especially Piper but then I am pretty much surrounded by Calvinists.Yeah, Sproul pretty much says unless you are a 5 pointer, you are not saved. Besides, my parents had "ecclesiology issues" with Dr. Sproul.

I will answer as best I understand you, and then you can tell me how wide I am from the mark of what you are looking for.Sounds fair.

I would say that God's moral will is revealed in Scripture. For example, the ten commandments. We know when something is God's moral will because God has revealed it unto man through the gospel. God's moral will is that all men everywhere does what is right, repent of sin, turn to him in truth, establish and propagate the church, etc. These are the things that, in I. Howard Marshall's words, God would like to see happen.

Alternatively, I would say that God's hidden or secret of sovereign will (pick your word) is hidden and we cannot know what it is (although we do know that it exists from Scripture). At the same time that God would like it no one to commit sin, he also has a specific plan and will that men sin by crucifying Christ (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Isaiah 53:10, Hebrews 2:10, etc.), to further his sovereign and redemptive plan for the human race. This is God's will or plan for all of human history, which includes human decisions but does not take away moral accountability for those decisions - "the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). I would say that in a sense, it was God's "will" that Adam and Eve should fall in the garden, because he had a specific redemptive plan for mankind. But surely this was not God's moral will! I would say that God's sovereign will cannot be thwarted.

I am fairly sure that is not the kind of answer you were looking for, but I hope at least it is a starting point for further clarification and discussion.

Thanks again and God bless,
Gavin The question then becomes, aren't you just defining the two wills into existence instead of finding them in scripture? Basically you are saying that if iit happens, God willed it, but if it did not happen and God said He willed it, it was not His _____ will but His moral will. That sounds an awful lot like rationalizing something into existence rather than finding it exegetically. Okham's razor would tend to shred that idea.

Anyway, fun discussion.

God bless you as well, my friend,

Jaltus

[Gavin]

Solly,
The poll. Remember?
Gee, you in-tuh-lek-chuls have trouble keeping on topic.
Ah, so sorry, I get easily distracted.

[Gavin]

Arminian,
it was at the time of judgment. God's anger was directed at their prior behavior, and now God's wrath was full.
So should I Timothy 2 be changed to say, "God desires all to repent, except those who have already sinned heinously and incured the wrath of God?!? They could have still repented under the rebuke of Eli, but God desired to harden them.

[Gavin]

Arminian,
We'll meet for lunch every day!
So you are at Wheaton?

Lunch everyday with Arminian . . . . maybe I will go to Wheaton now!:tongue:

[Jaltus]

Wheaton for a Ph D, yes, for a Master's, not so much.

[Gavin]

for a Master's, not so much.
Really? I thought they had a good program.:huh:

[Arminian]

Gavin,

So should I Timothy 2 be changed to say, "God desires all to repent, except those who have already sinned heinously and incured the wrath of God?!?

Well, if you understand the verse in Sam 2 the way you do, it still doesn't make your point, which is that God doesn't really will that all men repent. The verse in question doesn't address their life prior to their heinous sin, doesn it!? No, of course not. God's covenant with Eli was to make his household a "prieshood forever," so God's intent was that his sons be part of that promise and, therefore, come to repentance. Yet the verses that follow say that the priesthood will come to an end because of the situation!! The "priesthood forever" is over!!

However, as with the people in the time of Noah, a point came when there was no turning back. The judgment had been made. See Peter's use of Noah as a warning. The same situation applies to all in hell.

So yes, God does will that all men repent and come to a knowledge of the truth. The implication is that they do so before it's too late and the fullness of God's wrath is upon them.

And note: God's will in various situations does not conflict, but proof-texting usually does.

[Gavin]

Arminian, thanks for your replies. I am not sure I understand them fully, but that is ok because I will not be able to reply for a long time anyway.

Hopefully we can resume discussion when I return from vacation.

God bless,
Gavin

[Arminian]

I am not sure I understand them fully,

My point is that God's promise to Eli indicates that at the time of the promise he had the best of intenetions for all of his family, including his sons. Otherwise the promise "forever" wold make no sense. However, Eli's sons incurred the wrath of God (at a later date in their lives) and the promise "forever" was retracted.

My other comments were of examples of times when there was no turning back. Such situations do not count against God's will that all men be saved, but instead PROVE it. The wrath he was trying to save them from eventually DID come, and there was no turning back.

Hopefully we can resume discussion when I return from vacation.

Perhaps. I may be gone when you get back. Enjoy the time off.

[GrayPilgrim]

The promise, forever, was not retracted! Hophni and Phineas failed to meat the requirements of the Covenant and so they brought the covenant curses upon themselves! All covenants have blessings and curses and to say when someone brings the curses on themselves this does not mean tha tthe blessings were retracted, it means they get the curses and not the blessings.

GP

[Jaltus]

I am hoping you meant failed to meet the requirements. I really do not want to think about failing to meat the requirements, it brings strange images of a truly bizarre cookout to mind.

Anyway, would one of you two-will people deal with my above post?

[GrayPilgrim]

03-14-2003 @ 12:01 PM
Jaltus:

I am hoping you meant failed to meet the requirements. I really do not want to think about failing to meat the requirements, it brings strange images of a truly bizarre cookout to mind.


Sorry I confused Hofni and Phineas with Nadab and Abihu :tongue: :tongue:

GP

[Jaltus]

LOL!

:rofl:

[Captain Ochre]

03-13-2003 @ 08:25 PM
Jaltus:

Yeah, Sproul pretty much says unless you are a 5 pointer, you are not saved. Besides, my parents had "ecclesiology issues" with Dr. Sproul.

Sounds fair.

The question then becomes, aren't you just defining the two wills into existence instead of finding them in scripture? Basically you are saying that if iit happens, God willed it, but if it did not happen and God said He willed it, it was not His _____ will but His moral will. That sounds an awful lot like rationalizing something into existence rather than finding it exegetically. Okham's razor would tend to shred that idea.

Anyway, fun discussion.

God bless you as well, my friend,

Jaltus

Seems that by the same token we could eliminate the term "rocking chair" in favor of "chair" using a similar invocation of Ockham's razor.
What God allows is God's sovereign will.
What God would have as the ideal (how things ought to be/have been, such as Adam & Eve obeying his command not to eat of a certain tree) is God's moral will.

If God had commanded A&E to have eaten of the tree, and also commanded all of our sins and actions, then there would be no need to distinguish, and I'd be helping you to swing away with Ockham's razor. The above seems like a significant distinction, to me. I'd be curious to find out why you'd disagree, Jaltus.

[Jaltus]

Seems that by the same token we could eliminate the term "rocking chair" in favor of "chair" using a similar invocation of Ockham's razor.Bad analogy. Rocking chairs are specifically made and presented differently. God's will in scripture is NEVER presented in a dichotomy (e.g. He willed X and willed -X).
What God allows is God's sovereign will.
What God would have as the ideal (how things ought to be/have been, such as Adam & Eve obeying his command not to eat of a certain tree) is God's moral will.Again, this is my point. You are defining something into existence which has no exegetical (read biblical) basis.

If God had commanded A&E to have eaten of the tree, and also commanded all of our sins and actions, then there would be no need to distinguish, and I'd be helping you to swing away with Ockham's razor. The above seems like a significant distinction, to me. I'd be curious to find out why you'd disagree, Jaltus. That just does not make sense. God did not command Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, and He did not want them to. He does not want us to sin either. How does this prove your point? All it looks like to me is that God has a single will, one which allows things to happen.

Let me put it this way, does everybody have two wills? Do parents have a sovereign will in which they do not let there kids stay out late on a school night, but their moral will lets the kids saty out on a weekend night? (no, this is not sarcastic, I am really wondering why a distinction is necessary)

[Captain Ochre]

03-14-2003 @ 07:11 PM
Jaltus:

Bad analogy. Rocking chairs are specifically made and presented differently. God's will in scripture is NEVER presented in a dichotomy (e.g. He willed X and willed -X).


Not in so many words, but you've already been given the example (one of many possible) of A&E: God willed that they eat not of one particular tree; God permitted that they ate of that tree.
The analogy is apt; your complaint is inapt.


Again, this is my point. You are defining something into existence which has no exegetical (read biblical) basis.


You deny that the idea that God directs one type of behavior while permitting another has a basis in the Bible?????(aw, why not a few more!)??????


That just does not make sense. God did not command Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, and He did not want them to. He does not want us to sin either. How does this prove your point?


It shows the Bible distinction between what God wants (ideal/moral/ought) and what God allows (actual/moral-immoral/is).


All it looks like to me is that God has a single will, one which allows things to happen.


Again, if I decide to go shoot up a McDonald's, is that God's will? From the view you have expressed above, the answer would appear to be "yes". That which is good, acceptable, and perfect?
The NT instructs us to discern what the will of God is: Does that just mean that we should read the newpapers and watch Fox news all the time (iow to stay informed regarding the "is")?


Let me put it this way, does everybody have two wills? Do parents have a sovereign will in which they do not let there kids stay out late on a school night, but their moral will lets the kids saty out on a weekend night? (no, this is not sarcastic, I am really wondering why a distinction is necessary)

I've already given the analogy from parenting, iirc. The parents (the responsible ones, anyway) institute such rules to build responsibility in their children, that the children will see the utility of following the underlying spirit of that "law". Typically parents have an ideal of how they would like their children to behave, and a greater sphere of how they will permit their children to act.
Yes, you also have two wills, but both your moral and sovereign wills are distinctly less weighty than God's (we aren't sovereign over very much compared to God).

It strikes me that what bothers you about it is calling them both "wills" or something like that. Am I right about that?

[Jaltus]

Yes, you are right that what bothers me is them being called wills.

It means that God has two different predications inside Him, which I think is false (speaking of God as essence, though there are three persons, there is one will). God allows things and causes things, both come from God. He does not have a split personality, which is what two wills seems to be (note that Jesus and the Father combined had ONE will, though this could easily turn into a messy analogy).

Do you see my point?

[Arminian]

Gray,

The promise, forever, was not retracted! Hophni and Phineas failed to meat the requirements of the Covenant and so they brought the covenant curses upon themselves!

Ummm...Maybe you should read the rest of the chapter!

"But now", the Lord sayeth, "be it far from me!" And so on...

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 08:03 PM
Arminian:

Gray,



Ummm...Maybe you should read the rest of the chapter!

"But now", the Lord sayeth, "be it far from me!" And so on...

yes that is exactly my point!

1 Samuel 2:30-31

30 Therefore the LORD the God of Israel declares: 'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,'
The Covenant blessing. Remember that a covenant establishes a relationship and thus the covenant established a relationship between Eli's house and Yahweh. Now the blessing was that it would go in and out forever. However, just as every covenant has blessings it also has curses--



but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor,

God will give the covenant blessings to those who honor the relationship that the covenant was established to make, howver:


and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house.
This is the curse on Hophni and Phineas for vioalting the covenant and thus on the family of Eli for his failure to reign in his sons. So God thus will execute the covenant curses and not give them the blessing of an eternal priesthood, as they had incurred the covenant curses.

GP

[Arminian]

GB,

I'm pressed for time, so forgive me for not quoting you and replying to each of your comments. I'll just address the content of your post without quoting you or much Scripture.

The comment "But far be it from me.." refers to what has just been said. Far be it from God to uphold that covenant of a priesthood "forever." Yes, he does mention "honor," but that's the reason the covenant ended.

Yes, covenants come with blessings and curses. This is one of a number where the blessings and curses were not mentioned up front, and which were "forever" ended because of a curse. So I agree that there is a curse here, but disagree with you as to the nature of the curse.

The verses at the end of the chapter describe the end of the priesthood, starting the deaths of the sons and ending with the eventual fall of the house of Eli, which includes "everyone from your family." Therefore, the promise "forever" would end because "everyone" meant every one!

Now let's look at what the last curse I was talking about. The fulfillment was much later and did not affect the long dead Eli or his sons. 1 Kings 2:27:

So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the Lord, thus fulfilling the word the Lord had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.

This fulfillment of God's word ended the priesthood of the house of Eli, and they were completely replaced by the Zadokite priesthood,which had started under Saul. :bawl:

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 07:47 PM
Jaltus:

Yes, you are right that what bothers me is them being called wills.

It means that God has two different predications inside Him, which I think is false (speaking of God as essence, though there are three persons, there is one will). God allows things and causes things, both come from God. He does not have a split personality, which is what two wills seems to be (note that Jesus and the Father combined had ONE will, though this could easily turn into a messy analogy).

Do you see my point?

Most definitely I see your point, but it should be clear that the wills of God are "wills" in two different senses of the term. It is neither contradictory nor indicative of a "split personality".
Note again the illustrations from the mundane world of human life.

[geoff]

The question is do I believe there is 2 wills in God.

The answer is No, not according to Scripture.

Someone else pointed out rightly at the beginning of this thread that there is a difference between what God "desires" to happen, and what actually happens.

An analogy might be, when you take your child to the movies, and you say, now sit still and be good. Indubitably the child will become restless and frustrated, then naughty. The parents desire is for good behavior, but instead has to excercise parental rights in order to teach the child how to behave, and perhaps discipline them.

A good parent expects/desires the best, but is prepared to deal with the situations that arise...

I have read Pipers paper on the 2 wills of God, and he fails to understand the difference between "will" and "desire". It also gives the arminian (the branch of theology) a headache, which is why arminian (who posts here) gets a bit passionate about it...

btw, if you read this arminian, I am reading moo's commentary on Romans... from start to finish... its quite good...

[geoff]

Ochre,

Can you please give me different definitions of the word "WILL" ...

I am not interested in sovereign, secret, private or any other adjective, if there is multiple *kinds* of will, there must be multiple definitions of WILL supporting your claim.

As far as I can tell, WILL is WILL, it doesnt matter if its sovereign or private or revealed or any other thing. A car is a Car regardless of whether its a real car, a secret car, a sovereign car... an action is an action regardless of whether it is secret, sovereign, revealed or any other such thing.

A desire is a desire, and Will is will, they are not the same thing, and they do not overlap in meaning, and should not (and can not) be confused for each other. It seems you might be claiming they are, so please show us how it can be.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:40 AM
geoff:

Ochre,

Can you please give me different definitions of the word "WILL" ...


Sure, but contrary to your apparent belief, it is beside the point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=will


I am not interested in sovereign, secret, private or any other adjective, if there is multiple *kinds* of will, there must be multiple definitions of WILL supporting your claim.


Non sequitur, notwithstanding your lack of interest.

There is one type of "skin" for instance, but "tanned skin" and "blistered skin" are not necessarily the same thing at the same time: Non-contradictory, iow.


As far as I can tell, WILL is WILL, it doesnt matter if its sovereign or private or revealed or any other thing. A car is a Car regardless of whether its a real car, a secret car, a sovereign car...


Irrelevant, as noted above. Is it contradictory for you to have a luxury car and an economy car?


an action is an action regardless of whether it is secret, sovereign, revealed or any other such thing.


Therefore you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?:wink:


A desire is a desire, and Will is will, they are not the same thing, and they do not overlap in meaning, and should not (and can not) be confused for each other. It seems you might be claiming they are, so please show us how it can be.

Entry: will
Function: noun
Definition: choice
Synonyms: aim, appetite, attitude, character, conviction, craving, decision, decisiveness, decree, design, desire,
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=will

'Nuff said (I consider it self-evident that synonyms have overlapped meanings)?

[Jaltus]

Good call, geoff.

By the way, nice avatar.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:25 PM
Jaltus:

Good call, geoff.



In what way, particularly, that I haven't already answered with my post-that-was-posted-mere-moments-before-yours?

[geoff]

CO,

Sure, but contrary to your apparent belief, it is beside the point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=will

Please now explain how this proves there is 2 WILLs for God. Still looks like "desire" and "WILL" are used differently.

I would suggest there is 2 ways DESIRE can be used.
1. A wish, a fancy.. eg i desire to be able to eat chocolate.. but as I have diabetes it can never be.
2. A desire as in a request or petition - eg "the King desires your attendance at dinner"

2. is more a command, a forceful request, and is not the way the word is used in respect to salvation in the pertinant passages in Scripture. Look it up in the dictionary.

By the way, the english is not so clear as to the difference... I believe a word study shows the difference more clearly.

There is one type of "skin" for instance, but "tanned skin" and "blistered skin" are not necessarily the same thing at the same time: Non-contradictory, iow.
So Tanned skin is not skin? Blistered skin is not skin? You arent talking about adjectives describing a "kind" of skin, you are giving skin a whole new meaning. You are making skin mean "a" and skin mean "b" similtaneously.
Irrelevant, as noted above. Is it contradictory for you to have a luxury car and an economy car?
A car is a car, an economy car is still a car, a car is not a boat. You are saying a car can be a car and a boat at the same time.

Therefore you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?
Sure, they are both actions. One is not a car. I will myself to move and to chew.. I dont have to redefine chewing as something else because I cant see it. It is still an action.

'Nuff said (I consider it self-evident that synonyms have overlapped meanings)?

See my first comment. There isnt 2 kinds of will, there is 2 ways in which desire is used. One should investigate all key words, not just a part.

Jaltus,

Thanks.

Btw, can you clear this up for me...
1 Tim 2:4
who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Can you explain the word "desires" for us here? The greek word, that is. please.

[Arminian]

Some versions of this "two wills" thing seem to be somewhat like the conundrum that asks if God can create a rock so large that he can't lift it. It requires two entities called God for the question to make sense. Therefore, the question doesn't make sense -- or at least it shows a misunderstanding of God.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:57 AM
geoff:

CO,

Please now explain how this proves there is 2 WILLs for God.


It doesn't. It proves that there is more than one meaning for "will" which is what you had asked about, and I continue to maintain that it is beside the point rather than proof of two wills for God.


Still looks like "desire" and "WILL" are used differently.


Based on what?


I would suggest there is 2 ways DESIRE can be used.
1. A wish, a fancy.. eg i desire to be able to eat chocolate.. but as I have diabetes it can never be.
2. A desire as in a request or petition - eg "the King desires your attendance at dinner"


How is this relevant to the topic at hand, please?


By the way, the english is not so clear as to the difference... I believe a word study shows the difference more clearly.


The difference between what words? Did you have Bible passages in mind?


So Tanned skin is not skin? Blistered skin is not skin? You arent talking about adjectives describing a "kind" of skin, you are giving skin a whole new meaning. You are making skin mean "a" and skin mean "b" similtaneously.


Exactly. It seemed appropriate to do so when you appear to be insisting that the term "will" is the key term. Now that you see that "skin" isn't the key term in my example, perhaps you will be moved to change your mind.


A car is a car, an economy car is still a car, a car is not a boat. You are saying a car can be a car and a boat at the same time.


I don't recall mentioning boats in this context.
Avoiding my actual example, are you?


Sure, they are both actions. One is not a car. I will myself to move and to chew.. I dont have to redefine chewing as something else because I cant see it. It is still an action.


Looks like I've made my point, yet you seem to fail to appreciate it.


See my first comment. There isnt 2 kinds of will, there is 2 ways in which desire is used. One should investigate all key words, not just a part.


You appear to be importing an exegetical angle to the discussion that I haven't heretofore been a part of (oops, "of" at the end of a sentence).

[geoff]

only some?

btw, g'day :)

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:05 AM
geoff:

only some?

btw, g'day :)

To whom are you responding, Geoff?
The subject of the thread is described in Gavin's initial post. Gavin's proposition requires no biblical exegetical basis, so the insistence on one would be a bit of a red herring, and the outcome would still be in doubt.

[geoff]

CO,

It doesn't. It proves that there is more than one meaning for "will" which is what you had asked about, and I continue to maintain that it is beside the point rather than proof of two wills for God.

And the point is, that any one who maintains that there is 2 "kinds" of will for God is incorrect. And anyone who takes the word "desire" (for example in 1 Tim 2:4) to mean "will" is using the wrong understanding of the word "desire".

I am not trying to prove there is 2 wills for God, rather that there is ONE will for God... and a huge misunderstanding regarding what it means to will, and what it means to "desire".

Based on what?
My explanation came after, to which you responded:
How is this relevant to the topic at hand, please?
It is relevant because as I said, it is incorrect to "assume" that desire means will. Therefore it is incorrect to assume there is 2 wills for God, for example, a "will" that all be saved, and another that 'not all be saved". it is, in fact, incorrect to think that God "wills" all people to be saved in the first place.

The difference between what words? Did you have Bible passages in mind?
Several, I quoted one above.

Exactly. It seemed appropriate to do so when you appear to be insisting that the term "will" is the key term. Now that you see that "skin" isn't the key term in my example, perhaps you will be moved to change your mind.

huh?

I don't recall mentioning boats in this context.
Avoiding my actual example, are you?
nope

Looks like I've made my point, yet you seem to fail to appreciate it.
No, actually, you didnt make your point at all... and now I am confused as to what point you were making.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:26 PM
geoff:

CO,



And the point is, that any one who maintains that there is 2 "kinds" of will for God is incorrect.


Geoff, Geoff, Geoff. Your idea above was rendered obsolete by counterexample. Luxury car. Economy car. Two kinds of car, same word "car" with the same meaning. You're playing a semantic game which does not get you anywhere.


And anyone who takes the word "desire" (for example in 1 Tim 2:4) to mean "will" is using the wrong understanding of the word "desire".


Assuming that this thread topic depended on an exegetical foundation (which it doesn't), we are simply not bound to use English words in a respect that perfectly accords with usages in other languages. Koine Greek is no exception.


I am not trying to prove there is 2 wills for God, rather that there is ONE will for God... and a huge misunderstanding regarding what it means to will, and what it means to "desire".


Yet you haven't explained away the fact that "will" and "desire"are synonymous without appeal to a different language.
Pardon my saying so, but that appears to be a serious weakness to your approach to the issue.


My explanation came after, to which you responded:


I responded by asking how it was relevant because you suggested two meanings for "desire" and appeared to simply assume that they were not relevant to the term "will". I don't see how you resolved anything by defining "desire" as you did, and I still don't.


It is relevant because as I said, it is incorrect to "assume" that desire means will. Therefore it is incorrect to assume there is 2 wills for God, for example, a "will" that all be saved, and another that 'not all be saved". it is, in fact, incorrect to think that God "wills" all people to be saved in the first place.


In that case, just let me know how you would interpret "will" apart from the following definition:
"A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared."


huh?


No, actually, you didnt make your point at all... and now I am confused as to what point you were making.

If you don't know what point I'm making, then on what basis do you determine that I haven't made my point?

[Gavin]

Arminian

So yes, God does will that all men repent and come to a knowledge of the truth. The implication is that they do so before it's too late and the fullness of God's wrath is upon them.
Which apparently is possible this side of hell! That is a remarkable concession you are making. So God can actually desire to put people to death while they are still here on earth, if they have lived lives of heinous sin? What about the apostle Paul? Why was repentance still possible for him, the "chief of sinners"?

And does this mean you accept the following qualification of I Timothy 2: "God desires all to repent, except those who have already sinned heinously and incured the wrath of God"?!?

What your view amounts to is simply another version of the two wills in God theory - God desires some to be saved (those that have not sinned heinously yet), and he desires others to be ****ed (those who have).

[Arminian]

Gavin,

What your view amounts to is simply another version of the two wills in God theory - God desires some to be saved (those that have not sinned heinously yet), and he desires others to be ****ed (those who have).

On the contrary, your misunderstanding comes from your own inability to delineate your own view.

God's desire for people to be saved and not perish only exists because his judgment can and will come. Those aren't conflicting positions. If there were no judgment, there would be no need to be saved from it. Rather, his judgment does come upon people and then there is no turning back.

Again, if there were no judgment, there would be no need or desire for salvation from it. There is NO conflict.

Yes, God is patient, but not eternally. I really think you have to try hard to NOT get the point.

[Gavin]

Arminian,


On the contrary, your misunderstanding comes from your own inability to delineate your own view.
Jake, I respect your opinion, but once again I must patiently remind you that you do not have a patent on truth. Your opinion is not fact.:tongue:
God's desire for people to be saved and not perish only exists because his judgment can and will come. Those aren't conflicting positions. If there were no judgment, there would be no need to be saved from it. Rather, his judgment does come upon people and then there is no turning back.

Again, if there were no judgment, there would be no need or desire for salvation from it. There is NO conflict.

Yes, God is patient, but not eternally. I really think you have to try hard to NOT get the point.
Of course. But the key thing that you have conceded is that this judgement to which you refer can apparently come before we die in this earthly life. And if that is granted, then that necessitates the kind of qualification of I Timothy 2 which I have previously (and understandingly) delineated. You must grant (and have granted) that God sometimes desires to judge people before they actually die and stand before him, rather than continue to allow them to repent of their own free will. God could have given them more chances to repent, but he didn't. He desired to kill them.

And you never answered my question about the Apostle Paul. Were the sons of Eli apparently worse sinners than he, the "chief of sinners"?

After this we can move on to another intriguing question - why did God "desire" to judge them if God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked"? Even if all you have said is correct, shouldn't an Arminian type of God be incessantly reluctant to judge?

God bless,
Gavin

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Of course. But the key thing that you have conceded is that this judgement to which you refer can apparently come before we die in this earthly life.

I've said this all along. I gave a a few examples that were even better than yours.

And if that is granted, then that necessitates the kind of qualification of I Timothy 2 which I have previously (and understandingly) delineated. You must grant (and have granted) that God sometimes desires to judge people before they actually die and stand before him, rather than continue to allow them to repent of their own free will. God could have given them more chances to repent, but he didn't. He desired to kill them.

Not really. Your position is that there are two conflicting wills. As I've shown, God's patience with regard to salvation is in response to his judgment, and is not in conflict with it. Your unstated claim is that God has to be eternally patient for any verse concerning the issue to make sense and not conflict with other verses. That's just false on its face.

And you never answered my question about the Apostle Paul. Were the sons of Eli apparently worse sinners than he, the "chief of sinners"?

First of all, the language is hyperbolic, since there were far worse sinners both before Paul and since.

To answer your question, Paul says that he was shown mercy because he acted in ignorace and disbelief (1 Tim 1:13).

As for Eli's sons, they already had relatives killed for doing much less, and it's amazing that God put up with those to whom much had been given for so long.

After this we can move on to another intriguing question - why did God "desire" to judge them if God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked"? Even if all you have said is correct, shouldn't an Arminian type of God be incessantly reluctant to judge?

I already answered this, and my answer stands unrefuted. This kind of reminds me of your posts with the OV'ers. You continue to post your proof-text that says that God will do what he had promised and claim that it says that God can forsee the future. You refuse to acknowledge what they have said and continue to repost the same question over and over. Sheesh!

[Jaltus]

I realize this is not like me, but I would want to take a look at the Ot here and see how God decided to pour out His wrath on certain nations.

Nahum 1 says:
NAS Nahum 1:1 The oracle of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
2 A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies.
3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.
4 He rebukes the sea and makes it dry; He dries up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither; The blossoms of Lebanon wither.
5 Mountains quake because of Him, And the hills dissolve; Indeed the earth is upheaved by His presence, The world and all the inhabitants in it.
6 Who can stand before His indignation? Who can endure the burning of His anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, And the rocks are broken up by Him.
7 The LORD is good, A stronghold in the day of trouble, And He knows those who take refuge in Him.
8 But with an overflowing flood He will make a complete end of its site, And will pursue His enemies into darkness.
9 Whatever you devise against the LORD, He will make a complete end of it. Distress will not rise up twice.
10 Like tangled thorns, And like those who are drunken with their drink, They are consumed As stubble completely withered.
11 From you has gone forth One who plotted evil against the LORD, A wicked counselor.
12 Thus says the LORD, "Though they are at full strength and likewise many, Even so, they will be cut off and pass away. Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no longer.
13 "So now, I will break his yoke bar from upon you, And I will tear off your shackles."
14 The LORD has issued a command concerning you: "Your name will no longer be perpetuated. I will cut off idol and image From the house of your gods. I will prepare your grave, For you are contemptible."
15 Behold, on the mountains the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace! Celebrate your feasts, O Judah; Pay your vows. For never again will the wicked one pass through you; He is cut off completely.

The point of this chapter, other than comforting Judah, is the "cup of the Lord's wrath" had been filled, and He was now ready to mete out punishment. It is Popeye-esque, "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."

So God goes into hyperdrive and destroys His enemies. Once the limit is reached, there is no going back.

Look at Israel and how she continually defied the Lord. He sent prophets to her, proclaiming the truth, and over and over she killed them. She did not listen.

So, God got fed up and sent people like Jeremiah to them to say that they were going to get spanked, but if they repented they might not get spanked for quite so long. Of course, Israel being what she is, she got spanked for a long time.

Of course, from Ephesians 4 we have:
26 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,
27 and do not give the devil an opportunity.

What does it mean to not give the devil an opportunity? Well, first of all, this is one of the rare times when the NIV translated better by putting "foothold," whereas the literal Greek would be "place." If you do in fact go to bed angry, it is possible you will give the devil a "place" or foothold in your life. Why? Because you are pushing God too far.

Remember, Satan needs permission from God before he torments, but sometimes it is our willfull sinning that allows Satan in. An occasional sin can become a common practice, that common practice a habit, and that habit an addiction. The reason for it is that God gives you over to your own sinfulness, so that "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (I Cor 5:5)"

Hopefully, you get my point.

[Arminian]

Jatus,

You just ruined my plan! hehe

[geoff]

Ochre
Geoff, Geoff, Geoff. Your idea above was rendered obsolete by counterexample. Luxury car. Economy car. Two kinds of car, same word "car" with the same meaning. You're playing a semantic game which does not get you anywhere.

I am trying to point out that YOU are playing semantics, and it doesnt work. You are the one who said "will" and "desire" are the same thing.

Assuming that this thread topic depended on an exegetical foundation (which it doesn't), we are simply not bound to use English words in a respect that perfectly accords with usages in other languages. Koine Greek is no exception.

All my understanding, including philosophy, stems from what I understand about God and the world from Scripture. Anything I read is filtered through scripture, etc. Therefore, when I make a claim about God and the nature of the world, it has to be consistant with Scripture, and exegesis thereof.
We are in fact talking about a passage in scripture, so Greek and Hebrew languages MUST have a bearing on it.

Yet you haven't explained away the fact that "will" and "desire"are synonymous without appeal to a different language.
Pardon my saying so, but that appears to be a serious weakness to your approach to the issue.

A KEY to the whole issue is a (and some) passage(s) in Scripture. If they do not support the "philosophical" understanding, then as far as I am concerned the Philosophical understanding is wrong.
That doesnt mean that logic and reason might not lead me to re-investigate my understanding of a passage. However, in this case, its clear.

I responded by asking how it was relevant because you suggested two meanings for "desire" and appeared to simply assume that they were not relevant to the term "will". I don't see how you resolved anything by defining "desire" as you did, and I still don't.

Thats a pity. Try studying the passage in question.

In that case, just let me know how you would interpret "will" apart from the following definition:
"A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared."
In case desire is "weak" - because the english word "desire" conveys the meaning of "wish". A translator would be more likely to use a more appropriate word, like "purpose" or "determined" in order to convey a more accurate understanding.

If you don't know what point I'm making, then on what basis do you determine that I haven't made my point?

On one hand you seem to be arguing one point, then in the same argument, argue against something using an argument which is opposed to the original arguement... which is all very confusing.
Basically you seem opposed to my view, but then include in your argument, an argument against me, which agrees with my argument.. either you are confused, are deliberately trying to be misleading, or dont comprehend the argument in which you have engaged.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44046#post44046)
geoff:

Ochre


I am trying to point out that YOU are playing semantics, and it doesnt work. You are the one who said "will" and "desire" are the same thing.


I showed that they are English synonyms, and you appealed to Bible Greek in answer.
Your response was irrelevant, as I pointed out.


All my understanding, including philosophy, stems from what I understand about God and the world from Scripture. Anything I read is filtered through scripture, etc. Therefore, when I make a claim about God and the nature of the world, it has to be consistant with Scripture, and exegesis thereof.
We are in fact talking about a passage in scripture, so Greek and Hebrew languages MUST have a bearing on it.


Oh? What passage of scripture are we talking about? Here I thought we were conducting a poll.


A KEY to the whole issue is a (and some) passage(s) in Scripture. If they do not support the "philosophical" understanding, then as far as I am concerned the Philosophical understanding is wrong.


Does the Bible support the calculus? The calculus is therefore wrong?
I suggest that you allow that compatibility with Bible teachings should not lead you to dismiss a philosophical (or other) proposition as false.


That doesnt mean that logic and reason might not lead me to re-investigate my understanding of a passage. However, in this case, its clear.


What passage are we discussing, again?
:smile:


Thats a pity. Try studying the passage in question.


Good. What "passage in question"?


In case desire is "weak" - because the english word "desire" conveys the meaning of "wish". A translator would be more likely to use a more appropriate word, like "purpose" or "determined" in order to convey a more accurate understanding.


So what?
What statements of mine do you think you're arguing against?
Be specific.


On one hand you seem to be arguing one point, then in the same argument, argue against something using an argument which is opposed to the original arguement... which is all very confusing.
Basically you seem opposed to my view, but then include in your argument, an argument against me, which agrees with my argument.. either you are confused, are deliberately trying to be misleading, or dont comprehend the argument in which you have engaged.

This is a thread regarding whether or not there are two wills of God.
I've said my piece regarding why I think that there are two will of God. If you want to disagree with something that I wrote, fine. Let me know what it is, at some point.
I've been in on this thread since before you joined it, thus I think that it is an open question as to who is failing to comprehend the argument.

[geoff]

Oh all right, you are obviously of such superior intellect that I had better remove myself from this discussion...

You cant even scroll up and read... sigh.. very very sad.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44092#post44092)
geoff:

Oh all right, you are obviously of such superior intellect that I had better remove myself from this discussion...

You cant even scroll up and read... sigh.. very very sad.


I can scroll up and read that the guy who started the thread based his opinion on two passages? Is that what you were going to say prior to signing off in the midst of pretending that I dismissed you as a dolt?

You scroll up and see where I invited you to disagree with what I wrote. Your point of disagreement was supposedly that "will" and "desire" don't mean the same thing. I showed that they are synonyms, and you appealed to the Greek in at least one of the passages that Gavin referred to as to why the terms should not be considered to mean the same thing. Yet, you haven't mentioned why this should be relevant beyond the assertion phase. I've given you plenty to answer in my former post, and you throw up your hands and make yourself the intellectual martyr (or something).
Answer the issues if you want to engage in discussion.
If not,
Buh-bye.
:hi:

[geoff]

:bawl:
:help:
:argh:


"say it with emoticons"

[Gavin]

Jake,

Your position is that there are two conflicting wills.
Conflicting? When did I say that? :huh:

Your unstated claim is that God has to be eternally patient for any verse concerning the issue to make sense and not conflict with other verses.
False representation again (which is why I find it pretty remarkable that YOU would accuse ME of not aknowledging what others have said).

I started typing out answer, but I decided against it. Everything I would say I have already said in my last few posts and I don't feel has been sufficiently understood or dialogued with.

The frustration of the opposing party not interacting with your arguments, believe me, is mutual.

And another thing - I mentioned in passing that perhaps after this we could move on to another question.
After this we can move on to another intriguing question - why did God "desire" to judge them if God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked"? Even if all you have said is correct, shouldn't an Arminian type of God be incessantly reluctant to judge?
You totally over-reacted and wrote the following. I already answered this, and my answer stands unrefuted. This kind of reminds me of your posts with the OV'ers. You continue to post your proof-text that says that God will do what he had promised and claim that it says that God can forsee the future. You refuse to acknowledge what they have said and continue to repost the same question over and over. Sheesh!
Jake, don't get so flustered. If you have already answered this as exhaustively and powerfully as you claim, then I am sure you can direct me to those answers when we get around to answering this question. But to right off the bat accuse me of not aknowledging others posts is reactionary and over the top.

You need to take some chill pills.

Jaltus,
The point of this chapter, other than comforting Judah, is the "cup of the Lord's wrath" had been filled, and He was now ready to mete out punishment. It is Popeye-esque, "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."

So God goes into hyperdrive and destroys His enemies. Once the limit is reached, there is no going back.


What about Ninevah? God doesn't seem a whole lot less angry with them, and yet when they repent he relents. Thoughts?

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Jake, don't get so flustered. If you have already answered this as exhaustively and powerfully as you claim, then I am sure you can direct me to those answers when we get around to answering this question. But to right off the bat accuse me of not aknowledging others posts is reactionary and over the top.

You need to take some chill pills.

I have said repeatedly that God's justice requires judgment. He is reluctant to judge, so he offers the opportunity to repent. This does not go on forever, however. Then there is no more opportunity.

Your unspoken premise is that God's patience must be eternal or it conflicts (or whatever term you want to use) with his other will. But it's God's will to eventually judge the wicked, and he wants you to repent so that you aren't one of them. That doesn't mean that his patience is without limits or that there is a second will.

It's his will that you repent before his wrath comes upon you. "Repentace," "salvation" and "patience" are all in view of the judgment to come, so ther is NO apparent conflict (or whatever word you chose) involved here.

So, it's up to you whether or not you ask me, once again, if there is an apparent conflict. As I said before, there is none, so any "conlflict" comes from your perspective, not mine

[Gavin]

Jake,

I have said repeatedly that God's justice requires judgment. He is reluctant to judge, so he offers the opportunity to repent. This does not go on forever, however. Then there is no more opportunity.

Your unspoken premise is that God's patience must be eternal or it conflicts (or whatever term you want to use) with his other will. But it's God's will to eventually judge the wicked, and he wants you to repent so that you aren't one of them. That doesn't mean that his patience is without limits or that there is a second will.

It's his will that you repent before his wrath comes upon you. "Repentace," "salvation" and "patience" are all in view of the judgment to come, so ther is NO apparent conflict (or whatever word you chose) involved here.

So, it's up to you whether or not you ask me, once again, if there is an apparent conflict. As I said before, there is none, so any "conlflict" comes from your perspective, not mine


the problem is that passages which show God's universal benevolence and will that everyone will be saved seem to be directed at all who are still alive, not just those who have not already incurred the wrath of God.

"'I take no pleasure in the death of anyone', declares the Sovereign Lord. 'Repent and live!'"

If you bring the timing of the judgement to before this life is over, then the benevolence ceases to be, strictly speaking, universal.

Blessings,
Gavin

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

Nahum is about Nineveh. It is what happens when they have turned away yet again.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

the problem is that passages which show God's universal benevolence and will that everyone will be saved seem to be directed at all who are still alive, not just those who have not already incurred the wrath of God.

"'I take no pleasure in the death of anyone', declares the Sovereign Lord. 'Repent and live!'"

If you bring the timing of the judgement to before this life is over, then the benevolence ceases to be, strictly speaking, universal.


I think they are universal, unless he is no longer calling them to repent and live because he has passed final judgment. I've been trying to make that clear. The same goes for all who have gone to hell. That doesn't make the verses any less universal, because they refer to all who have not come under eternal judgment.

Because final judgment is coming, you still have the chance to repent, and God desires it.

If you bring the timing of the judgement to before this life is over, then the benevolence ceases to be, strictly speaking, universal.

No, as I've shown, it doesn't. The same argument could be made concerning those in hell. Since they still exist, God desires that they repent? No, it doesn't matter concerning the "timing."

The death sentence on Eli's sons was a shadow of their eternal judgment based upon their behavior, just as the eternal covenant with Eli that was disolved was a shadow of God's good intentions toward BOTH Eli AND his sons. Otherwise, we should just call God a liar.

[Gavin]

Jaltus,
Nahum is about Nineveh. It is what happens when they have turned away yet again.
Well I guess that answers my question.
Jake,
I think they are universal, unless he is no longer calling them to repent and live because he has passed final judgment. I've been trying to make that clear. The same goes for all who have gone to hell. That doesn't make the verses any less universal, because they refer to all who have not come under eternal judgment.

Because final judgment is coming, you still have the chance to repent, and God desires it.

. . .

No, as I've shown, it doesn't. The same argument could be made concerning those in hell. Since they still exist, God desires that they repent? No, it doesn't matter concerning the "timing."

The death sentence on Eli's sons was a shadow of their eternal judgment based upon their behavior, just as the eternal covenant with Eli that was disolved was a shadow of God's good intentions toward BOTH Eli AND his sons. Otherwise, we should just call God a liar.

I have always understood the phenomenon of "final judgement" to be at the believer's death, consequent upon his appearance before the throne of God.

For example, in Isaiah 55:6, I have always understood "while he may be found" and "while he is near" to be before we die and our judged.
"Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near."

This makes sense because it is at this point (our death) that we give an account to God for the things we did while in the body .

2 Corinthians 5
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Do you have any texts that assert or imply that final judgement can occur before death?

(I would like to say more on this, but it will have to wait. I would also like to raise some other issues, but I won't mention them in passing just yet for fear of seeming to ignore another's position.)

Thoughts?

Gavin

[Arminian]

Gavin,

I have always understood the phenomenon of "final judgement" to be at the believer's death, consequent upon his appearance before the throne of God.

In that sense you are correct. My point is that often judgment is given at death (think of Sodom and Gomorra, for example), so we don't need to wait to see the outcome. The final judgment is placed before us in the wrath that comes upon them in this life, and there is no second chance after that. That's why I used the word "shadow" to describe God's good intentions toward Eli's sons and his final wrath upon them (which was by no means mysterious or capracious).

[Gavin]

Jake,

In that sense you are correct. My point is that often judgment is given at death (think of Sodom and Gomorra, for example), so we don't need to wait to see the outcome. The final judgment is placed before us in the wrath that comes upon them in this life, and there is no second chance after that. That's why I used the word "shadow" to describe God's good intentions toward Eli's sons and his final wrath upon them (which was by no means mysterious or capracious).

Okay, but this is not the same situation as Sodom and Gomorra. Here the sons are given a chance to repent.

22 Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 23 So he said to them, "Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. 24 No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear spreading among the LORD's people. 25 If a man sins against another man, God [5] may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

When Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed, the situation there was not that God sent a prophet to rebuke them, but they did not listen for it was the will of the Lord to put them death. They were just destroyed.

The statment that I have colored above suggests that Eli's sons could have repented had they listened to Eli's rebuke (otherwise, why would it say it is the will of the Lord to put them to death?). But the very reason they do not repent is God's will.

In short, it is not just a matter of God getting fed up and intervening for their final judgement. It is God causing them not to repent.

Thoughts?

[Arminian]

Gavin,

In short, it is not just a matter of God getting fed up and intervening for their final judgement. It is God causing them not to repent.

I know. As I said, GOD'S JUDGMENT IS ALREADY UPON THEM!

Why? For some capracious reason? NO! We can read the story to find out why. The time for repentance has passed. As with Sodom, judgment is upon them. And, God's eternal covenant of goodwill, directed at them, is, therefore, revolked.

The end.

[Gavin]

Jake,

I know. As I said, GOD'S JUDGMENT IS ALREADY UPON THEM!

Why? For some capracious reason? NO! We can read the story to find out why. The time for repentance has passed. As with Sodom, judgment is upon them. And, God's eternal covenant of goodwill, directed at them, is, therefore, revolked.

The end.

Your statement "GOD'S JUDGMENT IS ALREADY UPON THEM!" is an assertion, not an argument. You have yet to provide demonstrative proof that this is so, despite your dogmatism. Whether or not it is final judgement is the very point in dispute. Your assumption is the very quod demonstratum.

The point I was trying to make in my last post is that God's judgement is probably not already upon them, because they are given a chance to repent under Eli's rebuke.

As for the broader point that has come up several times about God's secret will being capricious, I never said God's secret will was capricious. Capricious in my dictionary means, "without evident motivation, suggesting willfullness, apt to change suddenly or unpredictably".

God's secret will is not at all capricious. It is in accord with his sovereign plan over all of redemptive history (Ephesians 1:11). God has a reason for everything he does. When he punishes people, as with Eli's sons, he is not doing so for no reason whatsoever - he is responding to their own freely chosen wickedness. However, the point of the two wills theory, and Calvinism in general, is that (at a myserious, different, level, above the ability of human reason to understand) God also has a say in directing the freely chosen evil actions that he justly punishes. This is particularly evident in Scripture when evil actions are part of God's sovereign plan for mankind, like the crucifying of Christ (Acts 2:23), or the war against the lamb (Revelation :17:1-17).

I fear you have misunderstood my view to an extent, which hinders our dialogue.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Your statement "GOD'S JUDGMENT IS ALREADY UPON THEM!" is an assertion, not an argument. You have yet to provide demonstrative proof that this is so, despite your dogmatism.

On the contrary, the text is clear that God's judgment is already upon them, and it is clear WHY is is upon them. Who would argue that God is not upset that they abused their office?!

Whether or not it is final judgement is the very point in dispute. Your assumption is the very quod demonstratum.

Is there another opportunity? NO!

The point I was trying to make in my last post is that God's judgement is probably not already upon them, because they are given a chance to repent under Eli's rebuke.

Is Eli their judge? NO!

As for the broader point that has come up several times about God's secret will being capricious, I never said God's secret will was capricious. Capricious in my dictionary means, "without evident motivation, suggesting willfullness, apt to change suddenly or unpredictably".

Can you predict it? NO! Therefore it is capricious.

God's secret will is not at all capricious. It is in accord with his sovereign plan over all of redemptive history (Ephesians 1:11). God has a reason for everything he does.

So you can predict it? NO!

When he punishes people, as with Eli's sons, he is not doing so for no reason whatsoever - he is responding to their own freely chosen wickedness.

Exactly. In fact, God had made a covenant and had to disolve it. Both his goodwill and wrath were clear, true, and not evident of two wills.

However, the point of the two wills theory, and Calvinism in general, is that (at a myserious, different, level, above the ability of human reason to understand)

Which makes the story of Eli's sons the worst possible example I can think of. There's no mystery at all. I suppose that for the Calvinist there's some mystery as to why God made the covenant in the first place, but not for me.

I fear you have misunderstood my view to an extent, which hinders our dialogue.

I totally understood your view. I've understood it since I was a child. Mysterious/capracious! "Without EVIDENT motivation." That doesn't mean there is NO motiviation. It means that there is no EVIDENT motivation.

[Gavin]

Jake,

Can you predict it? NO! Therefore it is capricious.

Unpredictability is not the only criterion for caprice. Capriciousness suggests randomness and has negative connotations. You have also used the word "arbitrary".

I would not describe the secret will of God in this way, nor would I say that it "conflicts" with his revealed will. They are simply operating on whole different levels.

On the contrary, the text is clear that God's judgment is already upon them, and it is clear WHY is is upon them. Who would argue that God is not upset that they abused their office?!

Non sequiter. That God is upset does not necessitate that Eli's sons are under God's final judgement.

You still have not shown that the sons of Eli could not have repented, that the judgement was final. You assume it was just because it was God's will for them not to repent.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Unpredictability is not the only criterion for caprice. Capriciousness suggests randomness and has negative connotations.

It's used in reference to "apparent" randomness as well. It's from the perspecive of the observer.

Non sequiter. That God is upset does not necessitate that Eli's sons are under God's final judgement.

It's clear that this act on God's part was not mysterious and was related to what they had done. It was, therefore, God's final judgment. I look at the text to find the reason (which is obvious to everyone), yet you refer to God's "mysterious" election which is not mentioned in the story!! Talk about a non sequitur!!!

(Btw, if you're going to start constantly using those big, fancy-schmancy logic terms, you might want to learn the proper spelling of the fallacies.)

You still have not shown that the sons of Eli could not have repented, that the judgement was final. You assume it was just because it was God's will for them not to repent.

Ummm....You assumed that. So now you object if someone assumes for the sake of argument that you are correct and argues against your conclusions drawn from that premise, using the context?! :doh:

Psalm 32
98 I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
I will counsel you and watch over you.
9 Do not be like the horse or the mule,
which have no understanding
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or my words will not come to you.

[Gavin]

Jake,

thanks for the reply.

First of all, you say,
(Btw, if you're going to start constantly using those big, fancy-schmancy logic terms, you might want to learn the proper spelling of the fallacies.)
Well, thanks for the correction and I assure you I am not trying to be pretentious or pedantic. I hope I did not come across this way.

Now, earlier I had said,
You still have not shown that the sons of Eli could not have repented, that the judgement was final. You assume it was just because it was God's will for them not to repent
to which you replied,
Ummm....You assumed that. So now you object if someone assumes for the sake of argument that you are correct and argues against your conclusions drawn from that premise, using the context?!

Actually, I did not assume that. I believe that the sons of Eli could have repented - that this was not their "final judgement" yet - but God desired to kill them, so he caused/allowed them not to heed Eli's rebuke, at the level of his sovereign will, not his moral will.

And you still have not proven that this was final judgement on Eli's sons. Just because God is angry at their previous behavior does not mean they could not have, like St. Paul, repented.

God bless,
Gavin

[Arminian]

Gavin,

Actually, I did not assume that.

Actually, you did. You assumed that God wanted them condemned. You draw your conclusion from a "mystery" not mentioned in the text, but my inference is based upon the narrative. I don't have to appeal to a mystery because I can clearly see why God responded by doing what he did. Both his goodwill and his wrath upon the very same people are understandable without appealing to "mystery."

[Arminian]

Jerry and Sally were sitting on the grass in the park and were planning their wedding. Jerry flirted with a girl that was passing by. Sally got angry and slapped Jerry and called the wedding off.

Sally slapped Jerry because:

a. Jerry flirted with a passing girl.
b. Sally's mysterious plan to slap Jerry was enacted.

Sally didn't give Jerry a second chance because:

a. She was so angry.
b. She had a mysterious plan to call the wedding off.

[Gavin]

Jake,

Actually, you did. You assumed that God wanted them condemned.

Are you twisting my words on purpose? The "that" which was in my quoted phrase referred to the notion that this was final judgement on them; it did not refer to the idea that God wanted them to be condemned. The two are very different. I deduce (not assume) that God wanted them condemned because that is what the text clearly says.

But as for it being final judgement, how can I assume this when I do not even believe it? Final judgement was your idea, not mine.

You draw your conclusion from a "mystery" not mentioned in the text, but my inference is based upon the narrative. I don't have to appeal to a mystery because I can clearly see why God responded by doing what he did. Both his goodwill and his wrath upon the very same people are understandable without appealing to "mystery."

I agree with you that God is angry about their prior sins, and that is why the judgement is coming (unless they heed Eli's rebuke). I am not ignoring the narrative. However, as I have shown, you are assuming that Eli's sons have reached that point of final judgement already where repentance is not possible. This - that they have reached final judgement and Eli is just wasting his words - is not explicitly shown in the narrative, contrary to your assertions. Of course God's anger was because of their sins. The issue was that it could have been averted if they had responded to Eli's rebuke, but God willed them not to.

[Gavin]

Jake,

The use of narrative.

Jerry and Sally were sitting on the grass in the park and were planning their wedding. Jerry flirted with a girl that was passing by. Sally got angry and slapped Jerry and called the wedding off.

Sally slapped Jerry because:

a. Jerry flirted with a passing girl.
b. Sally's mysterious plan to slap Jerry was enacted.

Sally didn't give Jerry a second chance because:

a. She was so angry.
b. She had a mysterious plan to call the wedding off.


You have proven nothing except that you do not understand my view, as I have suspected in previous posts. I completely agree, as stated in above post, that the reason for God's anger and impending judgement was their sins.

But your story breaks down as an analogy because it does not show Jerry being given a chance to repent (apologize), and Sally willing him not to do so.

[Gavin]

Do you accept the notion that there are two wills in God?

Yes 10 50.00%
No 10 50.00%
other 0 0%


Neck to neck as we round seven pages . . . who will cast the tie breaking vote, we wonder?:joy:

[Arminian]

Gavin,

But your story breaks down as an analogy because it does not show Jerry being given a chance to repent (apologize), and Sally willing him not to do so.

Sorry, but my second question includes that. There was no "second chance."

[Arminian]

Gavin,

You have proven nothing except that you do not understand my view, as I have suspected in previous posts.

I understand that you draw from a mystery not mentioned in the text, but I draw from the narratve. God could have given them an itchy rash or an ugly pimple. His wrath was stronger than that, however. And there's no mystery why.

This - that they have reached final judgement and Eli is just wasting his words - is not explicitly shown in the narrative, contrary to your assertions.

He wan't wasting his words, huh! They were wasted! Eli didn't have anything more than a general idea that God would be angry. Yes, his words were wasted. And there's no mystery why. All we have to do is look at the text to see why God did what he did.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

The two are very different. I deduce (not assume) that God wanted them condemned because that is what the text clearly says.

And, as I said, that's my point, too. But I know why from the text because I can read it. You don't know why because you appeal to a "mystery" that isn't mentioned in the text.

You DO assume because you can't deduce it from the narrative, but rather from a "mystery" not mentioned in the text.

[Gavin]

Jake,

for the umpteenth time, I absolutely agree that the reason the judgement is coming is that Eli's sons have sinned.

So statements such as:
I understand that you draw from a mystery not mentioned in the text, but I draw from the narratve. God could have given them an itchy rash or an ugly pimple. His wrath was stronger than that, however. And there's no mystery why.
there's no mystery why. All we have to do is look at the text to see why God did what he did.

I know why from the text because I can read it. You don't know why because you appeal to a "mystery" that isn't mentioned in the text.

You DO assume because you can't deduce it from the narrative, but rather from a "mystery" not mentioned in the text.

are completely irrelevant. If you had read my last post very carefully, you have observed that I completely agree that the reason God is angry is because of the their sins. I agree with you that that is obvious from the narrative. There is absolutely no "mystery" as to why God is angry with them.

The issue here, as I have repeatedly shown, is the extent of that anger . Just because God is angry with them does not mean they could not have repented. Eli rebuked his sons and gave them a chance to turn away. You simply assume that the reason God desired them to turn away is because his judgement was already full, but this is not evident from the narrative.

There is absolutely nothing in the text, in the narrative, that states or implies that the sons of Eli are under final judgement.

You use the word "mystery" as if it were a dirty word to describe my explanation of God's will for them to perish. But it is only "mysterious" in that is unknowable to us why God did this. If this is "mysterious", then so is everything that God allows in the world, the reason for which remains unclear.

My view is, very simply, that Eli's sons could have repented but God in his sovereignty caused/allowed them not to. That I take to be the (to resurrect this old phrase from previous discussions) most natural reading of the text: "Eli's sons did not repent because God wanted them to perish."

[Gavin]

11 to 11, still a tie!

[Arminian]

Gavin,

The issue here, as I have repeatedly shown, is the extent of that anger.

And I'm glad I said that first. As I said, the punishment fit the crime, considering the position they had. A pimple or a liver spot simply wouldn't have fit the crime.

Just because God is angry with them does not mean they could not have repented.

On the contrary, that's why God's word did not come to them. His wrath was upon them.

Eli rebuked his sons and gave them a chance to turn away.

Yeah, and I addressed that yesterday. Eli did, but God did not.

You simply assume that the reason God desired them to turn away is because his judgement was already full, but this is not evident from the narrative.

It's evident that God's intense wrath was not a mystery. It was clearly understandable from the narrative. God's decision, based upon past events, was made based upon their behavior (and not a mystery), and took place prior to Eli's rebuke.

There is absolutely nothing in the text, in the narrative, that states or implies that the sons of Eli are under final judgement.

If God wanted to kill them prior to Eli's rebuke, there's no other opportunity, then, so that is final judgment prior to Eli's rebuke. How you can deny it is beyond me. It's clear from the narrative, and no appeal to mysteries or water fairies is necessary.

You use the word "mystery" as if it were a dirty word to describe my explanation of God's will for them to perish.

You have a desperate theory in search of validation. The narrative is clear, so there's no need to improve upon God's word just for the convenience of your desired results.

God "wanted to put them to death." The text tells us why he was so angry that wanted to do this. You may claim it's a mystery, but you do so because you need an argument from silence to make your point. I'm glad the text does not afford you the opportunity for silence.

But it is only "mysterious" in that is unknowable to us why God did this.

It's really clear why God did this!! They were having sex (which suggests pagan cultic practice) in the temple, for Pete's sake!! OPEN YOUR EYES!! Your attempt to divorce God's expression of wrath from this event has failed from the start!

[Gavin]

Jake,

On the contrary, that's why God's word did not come to them. His wrath was upon them.

My point here is that this statement is an assumption, not a deduction. I suspect you know this, and that is why you are trying so hard to divert attention to my view, attacking the idea that God's judgement sometimes is "mysterious." But I don't know how much further discussion on this will really profit anyone, since we have been harping on this for some time without any breakthroughs. I will post a new consideration soon on this passage unless this starts going somewhere.

It's really clear why God did this!! They were having sex (which suggests pagan cultic practice) in the temple, for Pete's sake!! OPEN YOUR EYES!! Your attempt to divorce God's expression of wrath from this event has failed from the start!
[sigh] I will try to say it one more time, although it has not worked the first four times.

I agree that God's wrath is because of their sins.

There. Got it?

[Arminian]

Gavin,

I will try to say it one more time, although it has not worked the first four times.

I agree that God's wrath is because of their sins.

No need to repost it. I understood it each time. You're trying to divorce God's wrath from his expression of it. You're trying to make his action mysterious, but we can not only see that he was angry (which is to be expected), but we also see how angry he really was.

This expression of wrath was severe, not mysterious. How was his wrath expressed? All we have to do is look at the text. We don't have to look anywhere else.

Why was God so angry? Look at the text. How angry was he? Look at the text. Why did he do what he did? Look at the text.

Look in a science fiction book for all other theories.

[Gavin]

Jake,

I say, "no, you are misunderstanding, I am not saying x, I am saying y.

You say, "no, I am understanding perfectly well, you are saying x, not y.

ARGH! :argh:

[Gavin]

Jake,

No need to repost it. I understood it each time. You're trying to divorce God's wrath from his expression of it. You're trying to make his action mysterious, but we can not only see that he was angry (which is to be expected), but we also see how angry he really was.

This expression of wrath was severe, not mysterious. How was his wrath expressed? All we have to do is look at the text. We don't have to look anywhere else.

Why was God so angry? Look at the text. How angry was he? Look at the text. Why did he do what he did? Look at the text.

Look in a science fiction book for all other theories.

I will try again.

Final judgement generally comes after death when we are before the throne of God. That is why Paul speaks of the judgement for the things done while in the body in II Corinthians 5:10. To put it kind of simplistically, we don't go to heaven or to hell until we die.

When God judges the sons of Eli, he is angry at their sin. Jake you are falsely representing my position when you claim that I am appealing for some mystery to explain God's judgement. You are confusing the actual judgement with his willing them not to repent at the last minute.

You simply assume that God here is bringing final judgement early upon the sons of Eli, and then say "just look at the narrative", "its right in the text", and "open your eyes". But it is not right in the narrative.

It is NOT clear from the narrative that the sons of Eli have reached final judgement, and that God would not forgive the sons of Eli if they had repented. It is clear that they have reached judgement, but not final judgement.

If you reply, "God's willing them not to repent was an expression of his wrath, then my reply is that that is an assumption you are making. You have not proven that God willing them not to repent is an expression of his wrath.

Contrary to your constant assertions, my position is not some vaguely defined "mystery" which is nowhere in the text. My position is that God allowed/caused the sons of Eli to not repent as an expression of his sovereignty over human actions. I believe that this is corroborated by many other Scriptures.

Just one for example. Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wishes."

This is not an unreasonable position, as you would make it out to be.

[Arminian]

Gavin,

First of all, I'm more convinced than ever that I have understood your position form the start.

Secondly, I never said that this was God's final judgment that would take place on the last day, and I know that you know that. I mean that it is a relfection (it anticipates) the final judgment, just as when Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed by what Scripture calls "eternal fire." If you go to Sodom today, you won't see any fire, becasue the term is really a reference to their eternal destiny.

You have not proven that God willing them not to repent is an expression of his wrath.

That's the most silly comment I've seen so far, Gavin. God's word says that it was God's will that they die. Yet you refuse to connect this with his wrath?!

The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives. LOOK AT THE VERSE:

His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

For reasons that escape me, you refuse to connect God's wrath with his anger over their behavior. "It's a mystery," you say.

Well, Gavin, let's throw the conclusion-driven proof-texting in the toilet where it belongs and actually look to see if God's wrath is related to SOMETHING IN THE TEXT related to their behavior, or if it is related to a mystery.

30 "Therefore the LORD , the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. 31 The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your family line 32 and you will see distress in my dwelling. Although good will be done to Israel, in your family line there will never be an old man. 33 Every one of you that I do not cut off from my altar will be spared only to blind your eyes with tears and to grieve your heart, and all your descendants will die in the prime of life.

The final verse says, "all your descendants will die in the prime of life." Is this a mystery to you, Gavin? It's not to the rest of us. Notice that the man tells Eli that God's goodwill toward his descendants has ended and they will die!!!!!! Is this a mystery? NO! We know EXACTLY why it happened because GOD told him: "Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained." No, it's no mystery! It happened because God was dishonored.

Now, one last time, Gavin. God is upset. Why is he upset? Because of a mystery, or because he was DISHONORED!!

Now, one last time, Gavin. What is God's expression of