Are there two wills in God? [Archive]

Gavin

March 12th 2003, 12:52 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 12:54 PM

Solly,
Just for the record, No.

What is this in response to?

Gavin

March 12th 2003, 01:37 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 04:58 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 05:02 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 05:06 PM

Gavin's not in/from Minesota

Only in spirit.

Jaltus

March 12th 2003, 07:45 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 10:47 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 11:47 PM

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

March 12th 2003, 11:51 PM

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

March 13th 2003, 12:11 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 12:23 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 01:18 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 01:20 AM

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

GP

Solly

March 13th 2003, 03:47 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 03:53 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 04:09 AM

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

March 13th 2003, 04:22 AM

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

Yep. That's what I heard.

Arminian

March 13th 2003, 07:53 AM

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

We'll meet for lunch every day!

Jaltus

March 13th 2003, 04:25 PM

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

March 13th 2003, 04:52 PM

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

Gavin

March 13th 2003, 04:59 PM

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

March 13th 2003, 05:06 PM

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

March 13th 2003, 05:13 PM

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

Gavin

March 13th 2003, 05:51 PM

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

Arminian

March 14th 2003, 12:45 AM

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

March 14th 2003, 04:14 AM

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

March 14th 2003, 06:16 AM

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

March 14th 2003, 10:20 AM

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

March 14th 2003, 01:01 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 01:08 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 01:17 PM

LOL!

:rofl:

Captain Ochre

March 14th 2003, 01:31 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 03:11 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 03:41 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 03:47 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 09:03 PM

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

March 14th 2003, 11:54 PM

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

March 15th 2003, 12:54 AM

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

March 15th 2003, 03:50 AM

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

March 15th 2003, 04:32 AM

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

March 15th 2003, 04:40 AM

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

March 15th 2003, 03:25 PM

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

March 15th 2003, 03:25 PM

Good call, geoff.

By the way, nice avatar.

Captain Ochre

March 15th 2003, 04:03 PM

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

March 16th 2003, 12:57 AM

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

March 16th 2003, 03:37 AM

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

March 16th 2003, 03:39 AM

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

March 16th 2003, 04:05 AM

only some?

btw, g'day :)

Captain Ochre

March 16th 2003, 04:23 AM

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

March 16th 2003, 09:26 AM

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

March 16th 2003, 12:21 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 02:53 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 05:34 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 06:02 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 06:27 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 06:52 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 07:13 PM

Jatus,

You just ruined my plan! hehe

geoff

March 24th 2003, 09:28 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 10:16 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 10:30 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 10:45 PM

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

March 24th 2003, 11:33 PM

:bawl:
:help:
:argh:

"say it with emoticons"

Gavin

March 25th 2003, 12:08 PM

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

March 25th 2003, 05:10 PM

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

March 25th 2003, 07:42 PM

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

March 25th 2003, 08:08 PM

Gavin,

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

Arminian

March 25th 2003, 10:20 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 12:49 AM

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

March 26th 2003, 04:04 AM

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

March 26th 2003, 01:54 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 05:54 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 06:43 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 07:26 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 08:32 PM

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

March 26th 2003, 09:06 PM

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

March 27th 2003, 12:20 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 12:38 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 01:15 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:04 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:11 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:13 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:21 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:23 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 02:27 AM

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

March 27th 2003, 04:07 PM

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

March 27th 2003, 04:10 PM

11 to 11, still a tie!

Arminian

March 27th 2003, 04:53 PM

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

March 27th 2003, 08:50 PM

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

March 27th 2003, 11:16 PM

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

March 27th 2003, 11:58 PM

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

March 28th 2003, 12:39 AM

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

March 28th 2003, 01:56 AM

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 his wrath upon those that DISHONORED him? Is it mysterious, or is it DEATH?

Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH!

Now, Gavin, one last time. Why does God want to kill them if not because he was dishonored? Because of your secret MYSTERY??? Read the text to find out!!!

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 02:10 AM

Gavin,

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.

You've lost your focus. Your issue here concerns "two wills." Your mysterious will was not found anywhere in the text, as I have shown. In fact, God's will is cleary explained INTHE TEXT.

Gavin

March 28th 2003, 02:59 AM

Jake,

ok, we are getting somewhere again.

First of all, I'm happy to say that I totally understood your agrument, and nothing you've said was misunderstood.
Are you omniscient? No? Then how can you be sure?

You refuse to admit the possibility that you just might not fully understand my position yet, and yet your last post betrays some of those same misunderstandings in telling me to read the text, "there's no mystery why God is angry", etc. - points I have already ten times over agreed with.

I don't know how to be more clear that I agree that there is no mystery why God is angry. He is angry because of their sin. But you continually assume that his will that they not repent is simply part of that anger. That is not clear and I dispute it.

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?!

Okay, this is the crux of this discussion. I would like to say that yes, you have understood me correctly, I do not think the reason that God willed them to not repent is because of some irrevocable "final judgement" which supposedly makes their fate "sealed", and repentance impossible. God was angry at their sins, so he sent them judgement. But there is no textual reason to believe that this judgement could not have been averted had they repented. Like St. Paul or Ninevah, where God relents.

The reason they did not repent is not because they already passed some mystical state of "final judgement" which "sealed" their fate - the reason they did not repent is, very simply (and directly from the text) because God did not want them to.

You can call it silly, but that is my position, and it is faithful to the text, despite your incessant cries to "look at the text".

The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives.

Exactly! You are entirely correct. I have said that very same thing about five times. This is what I have been arguing for all along because it totally flies in the face with your fantastical theory that they had reached final judgement and their fate was sealed.

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.

It is with specific thought to that sentence that I have made my position. I agree, lets look at the verse.

Now as we turn to text there are very specific and intractable problems if we interpret it in light of your view, Jake. Why does it have the first part about them not listening to Eli's rebuke? As you said, the implication is that they could have repented. So if the situation is merely one of them making God angry and God judging them, why is this verse here? What is the point in saying that God's desire for them to perish led them to spurn a rebuke which they could have repented under?

[continued in next post]

Gavin

March 28th 2003, 03:00 AM

Secondly, why does God "desire" them to perish? I remember Piper saying that the same Hebrew word for desire is being used here as is used in Ezekiel 18, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." If Exekiel 18 is true always and at all levels, then why would God desire to punish the sons of Eli? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for an Arminian type of God to be reluctant to judge them, regardless of how angry he is?

Thirdly and most forcefully, whether or not God's desire for them to not repent was a part of his wrath on them (as you assume), the text still indicates that God can influence human decisions to repent or not. Arminianism declares that God leaves the decision to repent or not up to human free-will - but here we see a very clear instance of where God actually determines whether or not people actually do repent.

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 his wrath upon those that DISHONORED him? Is it mysterious, or is it DEATH?

Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH!

Now, Gavin, one last time. Why does God want to kill them if not because he was dishonored? Because your your secret MYSTERY??? Read the text to find out!!!

That was four "one last time's". Really not necessary, thanks.

So you are saying that God can become so angry with people that he actually causes people to not repent when they could have? I don't think many arminians would agree with you, Jake!

Gavin

March 28th 2003, 03:05 AM

Jake,

I know that I have some things in above posts that you feel you have already answered. Don't jumpt through the ceiling, ok? Just feel free to ignore them. I put them in because I was trying my thoughts complete, and it all related to each other.

Gavin

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 03:36 AM

Gavin,

But there is no textual reason to believe that this judgement could not have been averted had they repented. Like St. Paul or Ninevah, where God relents.

It appears to me that you're trying to change the topic, Gavin. The issue isn't what God could do, but rather what he did do and why. Is his wrath a mystery as you have claimed? NO!!! This abuse of the priestly office was one that God wanted to punish in this way, and we know exactly why!!

And you can complain about my "final judgment" all you like, but it's not necessary to my argument. All that is being spoken of is their physical deaths, along with all of the deaths of their other relatives. You're the one that spoke of election in this regard, so I have to laugh that you want me to find the exact words in the text or you will reject them. You can shelve the idea as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to see final judgment in regard to Sodom either, for that matter.

The reason they did not repent is not because they already passed some mystical state of "final judgement" which "sealed" their fate - the reason they did not repent is, very simply (and directly from the text) because God did not want them to.

First of all, I didn't say the judgment was mystical. God decided when and how his wrath would take place. I showed how and why, contrary to what you were claiming (that it's a mystery). And, as I said, God did not want them to repent because he had already decided to kill them. Their repentance would have stopped their deaths and the deaths of their relatives. This isn't mysterious. It's clearly explained in the text that God was going to kill them for what they did, and NOT because of a mystery. The very thing you claim is not is the text is CLEARLY described. Yet your mystery is only present in your imagination.

What comes next is really funny. I said:

The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives.

You responded:

Exactly! You are entirely correct. I have said that very same thing about five times. This is what I have been arguing for all along because it totally flies in the face with your fantastical theory that they had reached final judgement and their fate was sealed.

If you said it five times, then you agreed with me five times. But then you say, "it totally flies in the face with your fantastical theory that they had reached final judgment and their fate was sealed." How is it, Gavin, that their fate is not sealed if God has decided to kill them before they repented? Isn't the other way around? Isn't that my very point?

Gavin, I think that because your attempt to divorce the wrath of God from the events in the text has failed, you're looking for any problem you can find to muddy the waters.

Now as we turn to text there are very specific and intractable problems if we interpret it in light of your view, Jake. Why does it have the first part about them not listening to Eli's rebuke?

How many times have I told you?

As you said, the implication is that they could have repented. So if the situation is merely one of them making God angry and God judging them, why is this verse here?

Ummmm...... COULD IT BE THAT THEIR FATE IS SEALED BECAUSE GOD HAS DECIDED TO KILL THEM FOR WHAT THEY DID AND NOT BECAUSE OF A MYSTERY! Read the text!! PLEASE!!!

What is the point in saying that God's desire for them to perish led them to spurn a rebuke which they could have repented under?

:::::earth to gavin.....come in gavin::::::::

Thirdly and most forcefully, whether or not God's desire for them to not repent was a part of his wrath on them (as you assume),

No, I proved it. That's why you couldn't answer my questions. This is at the heart of the issue that you brought up. Your "whether or not" appears to be a concession. If so, we can move on to other topics, because then you are admitting that there is no mystery concerning the reason for God's wrath.

the text still indicates that God can influence human decisions to repent or not. Arminianism declares that God leaves the decision to repent or not up to human free-will - but here we see a very clear instance of where God actually determines whether or not people actually do repent.

I already addressed this. His wrath is already upon them. If you don't see final judgment here, then it only speaks of physical death. There is no Arminian doctrine concerning repentance involving physical death.

That was four "one last time's". Really not necessary, thanks.

What was necessary was for you to address what I said, because it disproves your position. That's why you didn't respond to it. So I repost it:

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 based upon 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 his wrath upon those that DISHONORED him? Is it mysterious, or is it DEATH?

Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH! So what did God do?

Now, Gavin, one last time. Why does God want to kill them if not because he was dishonored? Because of your secret MYSTERY??? Read the text to find out!!!

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 04:29 AM

Gavin,

So you are saying that God can become so angry with people that he actually causes people to not repent when they could have? I don't think many arminians would agree with you, Jake!

Since I'm not really an Arminain in the usual sense of the word, as usual, I really don't care. Yet....:

"They had now sinned away their day of grace....And God gave them over to reprobate mind and 'determined to destroy them.'" --John Wesley.

More???

Gavin

March 28th 2003, 03:32 PM

Jake,

how long will you try to divert attention from the fact that you have not proven that final judgement was upon them? You can say, "look at the text, read the text", all you want, but it is perfectly useless (and very annoying) until you demonstrate that your claim is in the text.

Bottom line: nowhere have you shown from the text that God's will for Eli's sons not to repent is part of his anger at them. But this will continue to go unproven precisely because it is not in the text.

And even if you could somehow prove your assertions, you still would be left with a God who is very different from what most Arminians believe in. You can say you don't care, but then maybe you should change your username!

Gavin

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 04:22 PM

Gavin,

Your last post shows that you are either on the run or that you didn't read what I said.

how long will you try to divert attention from the fact that you have not proven that final .judgement was upon them?

You look silly here, Gavin. I said in my last post that it doesn't matter.

You can say, "look at the text, read the text", all you want, but it is perfectly useless (and very annoying) until you demonstrate that your claim is in the text.

I did demonstrate it from the text, silly. That's why you can't answer my questions. There is no mystery here, and you know it. That's why you can't interact with my post. If you do answer my questions, you will have to refer to the text and see that the man who talked to Eli discussed how and why everything was going to happen. There was NO MYSTERY why it happened.

Bottom line: nowhere have you shown from the text that God's will for Eli's sons not to repent is part of his anger at them. But this will continue to go unproven precisely because it is not in the text.

Bottom line is that you are on the run and all you have left is to posture. My post and questions remain. God gave ALL the details concerning how and why this happened. But you're on the run so I'll refer anyone who is interested to look at the section of Scripture that I quoted to see WHY this happened.

As for you, you need to face up to what I've said or start paying attention (I have no idea which is the problem).

And even if you could somehow prove your assertions, you still would be left with a God who is very different from what most Arminians believe in. You can say you don't care, but then maybe you should change your username!

You're just lashing out because you're cornered. God can kill anyone he wants. There's nothing in Arminianism that rejects that.

Now either answer my questions or run away.

Gavin

March 28th 2003, 04:46 PM

Jake,

I am on the way out of door for a trip home for the weekend. Expect a reply when I return. Thanks for carrying on this discussion with me!

Gavin

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 05:43 PM

You're still online long after you posted, Gavin. Why not go ahead and address the issue......

Arminian

March 28th 2003, 10:23 PM

Gavin,

And even if you could somehow prove your assertions, you still would be left with a God who is very different from what most Arminians believe in.

Do you know who John Wesley is? Didn't you see that I made a special post that quoted only him? I asked you if you wanted more examples of the opinions of Arminians. OPEN YOUR EYES!

You can say you don't care, but then maybe you should change your username!

Maybe you should have your eyes examined.

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 02:12 AM

Jake,

I am back in town now. Thanks for waiting.

Your last post shows that you are either on the run or that you didn't read what I said.

Or I was just tired of going line by line since it got us nowhere, so I just posted a more general sort of attack on you position as a whole.

You look silly here, Gavin. I said in my last post that it doesn't matter.

But obviously it does. Your entire case is predicated on the idea that God is so angry that he causes them not to repent, that they are past the point of repentance. I could give you quotes up the wazoo to prove this. You have said that in every post because it is really all you have to say, so you must keep repeating it over and over again, blindly insisting it is in the text, and the rest of us must merely open our eyes.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, Jake, but "what you say" on the one hand and "what is actually true" on the other are not the same %100 of the time. Though in fairness you are a generally good exegete, and I have learned a lot from our dialogues. You just need to get some humility and realize you are not infallible.

I did demonstrate it from the text, silly.

Please avoid the name calling. Temper, temper!:rant:

That's why you can't answer my questions. There is no mystery here, and you know it.

How do you know what I know? Your constant exxagerated claims of your own understanding and clarity of sight are really arrogant. Give it a rest once in a while, huh?

You have not shown that it is explicitly in the text that the reason for God causing them to not repent is his anger at their sins. All you can do is point out that he angry, and call me stupid for not making the connection. But at the end of the day, it is still assumed. As I have tried to show, there are strong reasons for thinking otherwise.

That's why you can't interact with my post. If you do answer my questions, you will have to refer to the text and see that the man who talked to Eli discussed how and why everything was going to happen. There was NO MYSTERY why it happened.
sigh . . . .
Bottom line is that you are on the run and all you have left is to posture. My post and questions remain. God gave ALL the details concerning how and why this happened. But you're on the run so I'll refer anyone who is interested to look at the section of Scripture that I quoted to see WHY this happened.

I was literally on the run on friday when I went out of town, but not on the run from your argument.

And I don't think anyone is really following us.

As for you, you need to face up to what I've said or start paying attention (I have no idea which is the problem).

Wow you admitted ignorance about something. Good job!!!

You're just lashing out because you're cornered. God can kill anyone he wants. There's nothing in Arminianism that rejects that.

Now either answer my questions or run away.

Ah, but Jake, God killing people is not all that is going on here, as you fully know. By your own admission, God is causing the sons of Eli to not repent when they could have repented - this goes against the concept of free-will, which is totally bound up with Arminianism.

I am not "cornered", although I was wondering the same of you earlier.

You're still online long after you posted, Gavin. Why not go ahead and address the issue......

I was posting the same type of message on another thread or two and sending out some pms. You sure are not very fun to debate with sometimes, for personal reasons. Why not give me the benefit of the doubt when I say am too busy to reply?

Do you know who John Wesley is? Didn't you see that I made a special post that quoted only him? I asked you if you wanted more examples of the opinions of Arminians. OPEN YOUR EYES!

Of course I saw it. Do you feel unappreciated or something?

The point is that what you conceded about God manipulating their decision goes against what Arminianism traditionally affirms about free-will, regardless of the extent to which one particular scholar may agree with you about the more general interpretation of the passage.

And yes I would love some quotes if you got em.

Maybe you should have your eyes examined.

You are the one going under the user name Arminian and then saying you don't care what Arminians believe . . . sheesh!

[continued in next post]

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 02:13 AM

Jake had written earlier,

It appears to me that you're trying to change the topic, Gavin. The issue isn't what God could do, but rather what he did do and why. Is his wrath a mystery as you have claimed? NO!!! This abuse of the priestly office was one that God wanted to punish in this way, and we know exactly why!!

What God could have done is very much related. After all, if God could have forgiven the sons of Eli, if they could have repented, then the "day of grace", in Wesley's words, was not really over.

And you can complain about my "final judgment" all you like, but it's not necessary to my argument. All that is being spoken of is their physical deaths, along with all of the deaths of their other relatives. You're the one that spoke of election in this regard, so I have to laugh that you want me to find the exact words in the text or you will reject them. You can shelve the idea as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to see final judgment in regard to Sodom either, for that matter.

You are the one who introduced that term. I am just thinking of your concept that they could not have repented, their day of opportunity had closed, and so forth. That is nowhere in the text.Judgement in the next life is tangentential. I am arguing against the view that the opportunity for repentance had passed and God's anger was already upon them.

But you have already agreed with me that they could have repented, contradicting your earlier statement on page 3 that:
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.

only to later add,

The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives.

So which is it?

I wrote:

the text still indicates that God can influence human decisions to repent or not. Arminianism declares that God leaves the decision to repent or not up to human free-will - but here we see a very clear instance of where God actually determines whether or not people actually do repent.

Jake you replied:

I already addressed this. His wrath is already upon them. If you don't see final judgment here, then it only speaks of physical death. There is no Arminian doctrine concerning repentance involving physical death.

Open your eyes and read what I wrote. God made their decision for them. In Arminianism this is never justified, irrespective of people's past lives.

That's the most silly comment I've seen so far, Gavin.

I cannot see how it is any sillier than the rest, because it is the same thing I have been saying the whole time!

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 based upon 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 his wrath upon those that DISHONORED him? Is it mysterious, or is it DEATH?

Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH! So what did God do?

Now, Gavin, one last time. Why does God want to kill them if not because he was dishonored? Because of your secret MYSTERY??? Read the text to find out!!!

Jake, Jake, Jake.

OF COURSE he has already determined to kill them!!! Of course their fate is sealed!!! That is my whole point. God hardened them to damnation for his ultimate purposes, at the level of his sovereign will. But at another level, the level of his moral will, REPENTANCE WAS STILL POSSIBLE and the sons of Eli will actually be held responsible for this very rejection of Eli's rebuke?

Don't you see that you are proving the distinction between the two wills for me?

geoff

March 31st 2003, 03:15 AM

Gavin,

Couldnt one also say, rather than "God hardened them to damnation for his ultimate purposes" that God, foreknowing the outcome of their future actions "Agreed" with them, allowing them the full benefit and consequence of their own (libertarian) free will actions?

Why does God want to Kill anyone? He doesnt "want" to, He HAS to because of His righteousness, but this same righteousness is that which also saves. Why does God kill them, because THEY CHOSE to remain outside of relationship with Him, and God, foreknowing, capitulates, ratifying their choice.

If God "hardened" them, causally, then if it fair to say that the sons of Eli are not 100% responsible. However, If God acted according to His foreknowledge, then the Sons of Eli are still responsible. Knowledge is not causuative, but "actions" are. "Hardening" is an action, an act of will.

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 03:26 AM

Geoff,

thanks for your reply.

Gavin,

Couldnt one also say, rather than "God hardened them to damnation for his ultimate purposes" that God, foreknowing the outcome of their future actions "Agreed" with them, allowing them the full benefit and consequence of their own (libertarian) free will actions?

Why does God want to Kill anyone? He doesnt "want" to, He HAS to because of His righteousness, but this same righteousness is that which also saves. Why does God kill them, because THEY CHOSE to remain outside of relationship with Him, and God, foreknowing, capitulates, ratifying their choice.

If God "hardened" them, causally, then if it fair to say that the sons of Eli are not 100% responsible. However, If God acted according to His foreknowledge, then the Sons of Eli are still responsible. Knowledge is not causuative, but "actions" are. "Hardening" is an action, an act of will.

I really was not trying to prove individual unconditional election based on this passage, although the topic is very much related. I was trying to prove that God has a way of willing things to happen other than what he morally wills.

Nevertheless, I do believe that in predestination, based primarily on other passages, but also this one. You say that God doesn't want to kill them, but he "has to" based on their own choices.

But what the text specifically says is that God actually caused them to not repent because he wanted them to perish. Its sounds like more than mere foreknowledge to me.

Reply if you want further clarification, or if I missed your point.

Gavin

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 04:28 AM

Gavin,

You have not shown that it is explicitly in the text that the reason for God causing them to not repent is his anger at their sins. All you can do is point out that he angry, and call me stupid for not making the connection. But at the end of the day, it is still assumed. As I have tried to show, there are strong reasons for thinking otherwise.

What do you mean I haven't proved that God causing them not to repent is related to God's anger at their sins? WHAT does the man who came to Eli relate the punishment of death to other than their sins? God explicitly declares that Eli's relatives will die because God was dishonored, and somehow you still can't find enough shame within yourself to prevent yourself from saying that you don't know why? How could he have killed all those people if the sons had repented?

And, you appear to miss the point that the reason for their deaths was to punish Eli. If they had repented, God could not have killed Eli's descendants. The punishment and the reason for the punishment are in the text.

Ah, but Jake, God killing people is not all that is going on here, as you fully know. By your own admission, God is causing the sons of Eli to not repent when they could have repented - this goes against the concept of free-will, which is totally bound up with Arminianism.

No, Gavin, it doesn't, as I already demonstrated in my argument and by quoting Wesley. I can also quote Arnold, Pace, Wiley and the like. God can consign anyone over to destruction once his patience is spent and his wrath is complete. Define "destruction" as you like.

I subscribe to all five points of Arminianism. That makes me Arminain, even though I'm not very Arminian in a number of ways. As luck would have it, however, I find myself in agreement with the majority of Arminians on this topic. So throw your proof-text manual in the toilet. Your formulaic jollies have come to an end.

You are the one who introduced that term. I am just thinking of your concept that they could not have repented, their day of opportunity had closed, and so forth. That is nowhere in the text.

I'm sorry, but unless you insisit on denying that God had planned to kill Eli's relatives, there is no way to deny that the text says that it will happen. If is was going to happen, then nothing could stop it. If nothing could stop it, then you have to admit that God's wrath upon their behavior (also directed at Eli) was complete.

Judgement in the next life is tangentential. I am arguing against the view that the opportunity for repentance had passed and God's anger was already upon them.

No, you are arguing that God has two wills, one of which is a mystery. You can't figure out why God would not want them to repent, when it's apparent that his punishment of Eli would have been thwarted if God had allowed it.

But you have already agreed with me that they could have repented, contradicting your earlier statement on page 3 that:
“
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. ”

only to later add,

“
The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives. ”

So which is it?

It's time to focus, Gavin. I said that once the opportunity had passed, there was no longer any opportunity after that. I used Noah as an example because Peter saw the flood as and example of "what is going to happen to the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6). According to Peter, Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and once the ark was filled there was no turning back. Similary, Jude says that the fire that fell on Sodom was "eternal fire" which was to "serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Final judgment was clearly reflected in their destruction.

So ,Gavin, I see God's wrath upon Eli's household as being full, because the wrath was declared in the prophesy of the deaths of the sons and other relatives was prophesied. There was no longer any turning back, so the eternal covenant of goodwill was revolked.

So to answer your question ("Which is it?"), it's one first and then the other. Both God's goodwill and his wrath do not come upon a person at the SAME TIME! And the reason why is NO MYSTERY!

Do you deny that there was an eternal covenant of goodwill? Do you deny that it was revolked? Don't you know why?

OF COURSE he has already determined to kill them!!! Of course their fate is sealed!!! That is my whole point.

Well then you get a gold star. But then you get it removed for not knowing why. :bonk:

But at another level, the level of his moral will, REPENTANCE WAS STILL POSSIBLE

No, it was not possible. Wrath was upon them.

Don't you see that you are proving the distinction between the two wills for me?

I see you are really confused. What is clearly described in the text is still a mystery to you. You fail to understand how seriously God took the temple and the priesthood.

The only lesson we can draw from your understanding is that God is capracious. The lesson we can draw from my understanding is how very seriously God takes the temple and the priesthood. Anything less would have been LESS of a LESSON. God was @#%! serious.

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 04:49 AM

geoff,

Couldnt one also say, rather than "God hardened them to damnation for his ultimate purposes" that God, foreknowing the outcome of their future actions "Agreed" with them, allowing them the full benefit and consequence of their own (libertarian) free will actions?

Why does God want to Kill anyone? He doesnt "want" to, He HAS to because of His righteousness, but this same righteousness is that which also saves. Why does God kill them, because THEY CHOSE to remain outside of relationship with Him, and God, foreknowing, capitulates, ratifying their choice.

I would simply say that "knowing" ratifies their choice. God's patience isn't eternal, and he can hand anyone over to Satan once his patience it spent (since that is what they want, anyhow). I'll give a few examples in the days to come.

The narrative was written to give a shocking example of how seriously God viewed what had happened. We are now entering the realm of theodicy, where narrative takes a back seat to the ends of the proof-text method's goal to justify the means. We'll all need a long shower when it's all over.

Enjoy the narrative (become Eli) while it lasts...... :read:

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 02:54 PM

Gavin,

One more thing:

your last post betrays some of those same misunderstandings in telling me to read the text, "there's no mystery why God is angry", etc. - points I have already ten times over agreed with.

Let's be clear here. You have tried to divorce God's anger from his wrath. I don't do that, so I have an explantion and you don't.

geoff

March 31st 2003, 03:47 PM

Gavin,

Just to save me having to read this whole thread again, can I have the verse again? (I read it last night but must have missed it)

Arminian,

We are already Satans, its that which we are to be rescued from.

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 07:20 PM

geoff,

We are already Satans, its that which we are to be rescued from.

It's a figure of speach.

geoff

March 31st 2003, 07:48 PM

Arminian,

Its a figure of speech, sure, but I would suggest you are not using it (perhaps subconsciously) as a figure of speech. You seem to be indicating that "being satans" is something "new", if you get my meaning.

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 09:05 PM

Its a figure of speech, sure, but I would suggest you are not using it (perhaps subconsciously) as a figure of speech. You seem to be indicating that "being satans" is something "new", if you get my meaning.

Good point, geoff. In some cases it may be "new," but I usually mean is that God withdraws, leaving them to their own demise.

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 10:49 PM

geoff,

Gavin,

Just to save me having to read this whole thread again, can I have the verse again? (I read it last night but must have missed it)

II Samuel 2:25
His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

Jake,

It seems to me that you are still contradicting yourself on whether they could have repented or not. We are not making any progress on any of the other issues here. Perhaps you would like to move on to another verse that is commonly employed to support the two wills theory?

Acts 2:23, "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God."

Acts 4:27-28
Truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever thy hand and thy plan (boule) had predestined to take place.

God predestined the death of Christ. The death of Christ, including "whatever" happened to him at the hands of Herod, Pilate, all the Gentiles and Jewish leaders involved in his trial and crucifiction, was according to the definite plan and predestination of God. Furthermore, in Isaiah 53:10 we read that "It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief". So clearly, in one sense, it was the will of God that Christ die.

Yet God would also hold those who crucified him accountable for this sin. In this sense it was clearly not God's will for them to crucify Christ. Hence his moral will is distinguished from his sovereign will.

Thoughts?

Arminian

March 31st 2003, 11:18 PM

Gavin,

It seems to me that you are still contradicting yourself on whether they could have repented or not. We are not making any progress on any of the other issues here. Perhaps you would like to move on to another verse that is commonly employed to support the two wills theory?

It seems to me that you are not answering my questions for a reason, Gavin. I think you know that if you do, you will undermine your argument. I may be wrong this time, but it's typical of you to change the topic when you get stuck. I've been waiting 6 months for you to respond to my question in the Informal Dabate folder on TO.

As for these new verses, what do you see in them that suggests two wills? Is it regarding the idea that God would want Christ to die, or the actions of the people? You merely say that what happened was predestined, so of course I wouldn't disagree with that. Let me know and then I'll respond.

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 11:48 PM

Jake,

It seems to me that you are not answering my questions for a reason, Gavin. I think you know that if you do, you will undermine your argument. I may be wrong this time, but it's typical of you to change the topic when you get stuck. I've been waiting 6 months for you to respond to my question in the Informal Dabate folder on TO.

sigh . . . I knew you would question my motives. I have responded to all your posts thoroughly except your latest. There comes a point where constructive discussion is no longer possible. We have been on this one verse for nine pages!

As for our TOL discussion, I am unsure why you feel that it was me who ended the discussion. I cannot believe you have been waiting six months for me to respond. I had forgotten all about that thread.

If you have any pressing questions you want answered, then direct me to them, but if it is just the same old stuff, I really don't see the point. We have been over it a lot already.

It is entirely possible to terminate a discussion without conceding defeat. Not discussion is eternal. If you think I am dodging your "questions" (I am still unsure which ones you are referring to), thats fine. In actuality I just see little profit left to be had from dialogue here.

As for these new verses, what do you see in them that suggests two wills? Is it regarding the idea that God would want Christ to die, or the actions of the people? You merely say that what happened was predestined, so of course I wouldn't disagree with that. Let me know and then I'll respond.

The actions of the people. I think my comments were sufficient to convey why I think it calls for two wills. If you are still unclear after reading them over, you can see the piper article.

geoff

April 1st 2003, 02:51 AM

Gavin,

Interesting, I have been looking at the passage in question and it seems to me that this same comment is reflected in the opening passages of Romans.

Why does God desire to kill them? The most literal understanding I can come to is in this paraphrase:
"Why are you doing all these evil things, that people have told me? Its really going to be very very bad for you, because if you sin against a man, you can be forgiven, because God can step in, but because you have sinned against God, and continue to sin despite what I say, you are showing that you are not of God - and God will have to kill you for that"

God didnt "give them over" - He had to kill them because they were unrepentant, evil men, who were not of the elect, they did not have a "new heart and spirit" - read this:

Eze 18: 26 When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. 27 Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. 28 Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, "The way of the Lord is unfair." O house of Israel, are my ways unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair?

30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live.

God doesnt "force" them, He allows them to reap what they sow, so to speak. The Sons of Eli were not of the Elect, they were not true Israelites. They were not repentant, they didnt care about anything but themselves, and death is what they deserved.

God "desires" their death in the sense that His Righteousness demands it, just as it demands the salvation of those who do believe. Read Dr Moo's excurses on The Righteousness of God in His commentary on Romans... its quantastic.. I am not sure I am up to explaining the fullness of what the import of this is. Moo argues that it is the Righteousness of God on which the death of the wicked, and the eternal life of the elect, hinges. It also explains this dilemma nicely :)

Arminian

April 1st 2003, 03:06 AM

I knew you would question my motives. I have responded to all your posts thoroughly except your latest.

And each post got more refined. Now how about answering my questions while I look up those verses from Acts!?

Arminian

April 1st 2003, 03:08 AM

As for our TOL discussion, I am unsure why you feel that it was me who ended the discussion.

Because you kept saying, "I DO have an answer, but I'll have to tell you later." [pharaphrase].

I cannot believe you have been waiting six months for me to respond.

Me neither. :rofl:

Gavin

April 1st 2003, 02:53 PM

Jake,

quote me saying that on TOL.

and direct me to your "questions".

Arminian

April 1st 2003, 04:39 PM

Gavin,

quote me saying that on TOL.

and direct me to your "questions".

Gladly. It's on the bottom of my list of things to get done before Thursday PM, but I may get it done as soon as tonight. Otherwise, you can do your own research.

As for my questions in this folder, invest 30 seconds of your time and I'm certain you can find them yourself and have 10 seconds to spare.

Gavin

April 1st 2003, 05:28 PM

As for my questions in this folder, invest 30 seconds of your time and I'm certain you can find them yourself and have 10 seconds to spare.

ugh . . . I have responded to all your posts except the last one, Jake. Like I said, if you have any specific and pressing questions you want clarified, hit me. Otherwise quit pretending you have been ignored; I could pull the same stunt easily.

Arminian

April 1st 2003, 08:36 PM

Gavin,

have responded to all your posts except the last one,

Then respond to it and stop playing games. Look for the question marks. Do you think I can find them, copy them, paste them and then quote them faster than you can read? This is typical. Grow up.

Jake. Like I said, if you have any specific and pressing questions you want clarified, hit me.

I already have.

Gavin

April 2nd 2003, 12:51 AM

Jake,

sigh . . . you tantrums get really old.

What do you mean I haven't proved that God causing them not to repent is related to God's anger at their sins? WHAT does the man who came to Eli relate the punishment of death to other than their sins? God explicitly declares that Eli's relatives will die because God was dishonored, and somehow you still can't find enough shame within yourself to prevent yourself from saying that you don't know why? How could he have killed all those people if the sons had repented?

Of course their death God's judgement on them. Once again your shock and amazement comes from misunderstanding my view, and then arguing against a strawman.

God is angry because of the sin. God judges Eli's sons because of their sin. So (and I will say this one, last time Jake, so follow me really closely here) the cause of their judgement was their sin, not a mystery. If you would have a little humility and really try and understand another view before you critique it, the world would be better off.

However, the very fact that God has in plan to cut off the sons of Eli indicates that something is going on behind the scenes of human responsibility. When Eli's sons are sleeping around in the temple, this too is apparently part of God's plan.

As I have repeatedly shown, the Arminian model of one universal saving will cannot account the possibility that Eli's sons could have repented, but God influencing them not to. You would bring final judgement into the text to show that God's anger is beyod the possiblity of them repenting, but at the same time you admit that the implication of Eli's rebuke is that they could have repented. When challenged for which is true, you try to say that they both are, but the reason why is no mystery.

Well, the reason why two contradictory things are actually not contradictory is certainly a mystery to me. If were like you, I would accuse you of knowing you were wrong and obfuscating.

Do you deny that there was an eternal covenant of goodwill? Do you deny that it was revolked? Don't you know why?

That God foreknew and planned their rebellion and revoking of the covenant is entirely in line with Calvinism, but not Arminianism.

Then respond to it and stop playing games. Look for the question marks. Do you think I can find them, copy them, paste them and then quote them faster than you can read? This is typical. Grow up.

If I were you, I would say that the reason you have not yet replied to my verses in Acts is because you cannot, and you are just "playing games".

If I don't reply to this thread anymore, don't wonder why.

Arminian

April 2nd 2003, 03:24 AM

Gavin,

I asked:

What do you mean I haven't proved that God causing them not to repent is related to God's anger at their sins? WHAT does the man who came to Eli relate the punishment of death to other than their sins? God explicitly declares that Eli's relatives will die because God was dishonored, and somehow you still can't find enough shame within yourself to prevent yourself from saying that you don't know why? How could he have killed all those people if the sons had repented?

You responded:

Of course their death God's judgement on them. Once again your shock and amazement comes from misunderstanding my view, and then arguing against a strawman.

God is angry because of the sin. God judges Eli's sons because of their sin. So (and I will say this one, last time Jake, so follow me really closely here) the cause of their judgement was their sin, not a mystery. If you would have a little humility and really try and understand another view before you critique it, the world would be better off.

Oh, I DO understand you, Gavin. That's why I asked you those questions. You have said that no connection between God not wanting them to repent and his expression of wrath could be made (see your posts from 3-27 and 3-28). Now you appear to acknowledge above (although no one can really tell because you STILL did not answer all the questions!) that God's judgment was upon Eli was the death of his relatives, including his sons. Now you use the word "judgment" above which appears to mean that you think that it is an expression of his wrath. So if God's judgment upon Eli is the death of his sons and other relatives, and the repentance of the sons would prevent that judgment, then there is a CLEAR reason why he didn't want them to repent. BY YOUR OWN WORDS, JUDGMENT IS ALREADY UPON THEM! THERE IS NO MYSTERY! YAHOO!!!!

However, the very fact that God has in plan to cut off the sons of Eli indicates that something is going on behind the scenes of human responsibility.

Why? Just because you say so?

All the reasons for this are described in the text. To allow the sons to live would prevent Eli from receiving the punishment God had planned for him. How much clearer can it get?

When Eli's sons are sleeping around in the temple, this too is apparently part of God's plan.

Now your arguments are getting circular.

As I have repeatedly shown, the Arminian model of one universal saving will cannot account the possibility that Eli's sons could have repented, but God influencing them not to.

I just did account for it. Rather, it's you who cannot account for it without circular arguments.

You would bring final judgement into the text to show that God's anger is beyod the possiblity of them repenting,

This demonstrates your dishonesty, Gavin. For days I've been telling you that I'm not using the "final judgment" explanation because I don't need it. I've just been saying "judgment," and you know it. You're cornered, Gavin.

but at the same time you admit that the implication of Eli's rebuke is that they could have repented.

I can't judge your mental state from this distance, but sometimes I really wonder about you, Gavin. I have said time and again that they could NOT have repented. You once claimed to have said that "five times," and I said that I had agreed five times!! OPEN YOUR EYES!

When challenged for which is true, you try to say that they both are, but the reason why is no mystery.

No, I did not say both are true. How you got that idea is unimaginable.

Well, the reason why two contradictory things are actually not contradictory is certainly a mystery to me.

Your own thoughts are a mystery to you.

If were like you, I would accuse you of knowing you were wrong and obfuscating.

If you were me, you'd accuse yourself of being confused.

That God foreknew and planned their rebellion and revoking of the covenant is entirely in line with Calvinism, but not Arminianism.

That's your response? No explanation how that would conflict with Arminianism? Huh..!

Btw, let's be honest here. You shouldn't say that the Calvinist believes God foreknew, but that he CAUSED an eternal covenant with Eli's house SO THAT he could mysteriously REVOKE it!! WOW!!!!!!!!!

If I were you, I would say that the reason you have not yet replied to my verses in Acts is because you cannot, and you are just "playing games".

If you were me, you would be very confident because you'd know that most people reading this saw my position paper on TO regarding those verses a few days ago and they know that I have a good response. If you were me, you'd have learned from dealing with you in the past that you try to change the topic when you feel cornered. So, I will address any and every issue, one at a time.

Now, there is NO MYSTERY concerning God's wrath here, and I've proved it. If you have an objection to that, respond to the content of my post without asking me to repost it.

Gavin

April 2nd 2003, 04:03 AM

Jake,

you said:
I can't judge your mental state from this distance, but sometimes I really wonder about you, Gavin. I have said time and again that they could NOT have repented. You once claimed to have said that "five times," and I said that I had agreed five times!! OPEN YOUR EYES!

Really? Were you then mistyping when you wrote:

Posted by Arminian on 03-28-2003 12:56 AM: The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives. LOOK AT THE VERSE:

I said:

When challenged for which is true, you try to say that they both are, but the reason why is no mystery.

You replied:

No, I did not say both are true. How you got that idea is unimaginable.

Really? What about that this, then? (I don't know how you can accuse me of dishonesty!)

Posted by Arminian on 03-31-2003 03:28 AM: So to answer your question ("Which is it?"), it's one first and then the other.

and finally you say:

Now, there is NO MYSTERY concerning God's wrath here, and I've proved it.

once again you have proven your ignorance regarding your opponent's position, which is why this whole discussion has gone in circles, and why I am ready to move on to another verse. If you really cared what I actually believe you might have noticed this from the previous post:

Posted by Gavin on Yesterday 11:51 PM: So (and I will say this one, last time Jake, so follow me really closely here) the cause of their judgement was their sin, not a mystery.

Why do you keep tearing down straw men? If you do so, at least please stop telling me to open my eyes, when it is evident it is tough getting you to see the obvious at times as well.

Jake, I really have to ask you - are you capable of carrying on dialogue with someone?!? Is peaceful conversation too far above you? You make all kinds of personal and ad hominem attacks, including questioning my honesty, eyesight, general intelligence, and all sort of other things, you cling stubbornly to your view and never even consider seeing things from another perspective, and then you wonder why I don't want to continue dialogue with you!?!? As if it is any wonder.

Jake, I am going to let you in on a little secret - both here and TOL the reason I stop dialoguing with you is not because I feel cornered. Its because of your personal inability to just have a normal discussion without getting bent out out of shape.

I say that with no malice toward you whatsoever with a genuine desire for your welfare.

God bless,
Gavin

Arminian

April 2nd 2003, 05:50 AM

Gavin, my dear friend,

What a delight to see that you have posted once again.

I said:

I can't judge your mental state from this distance, but sometimes I really wonder about you, Gavin. I have said time and again that they could NOT have repented. You once claimed to have said that "five times," and I said that I had agreed five times!! OPEN YOUR EYES!

you replied:

Really? Were you then mistyping when you wrote:

“ Posted by Arminian on 03-28-2003 12:56 AM: The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives. LOOK AT THE VERSE:

Sigh........ You took my comment out of context. Here is your comment that I was commenting on:

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

My reply to which you refer is a response to your comment above, and the point I was making was that they couldn't have repented because that would have foiled God's plan to punish Eli. Therefore, because God had decided to kill Eli's relatives because of His judgment (which is an expression of his wrath -- to answer your objection above), He could not allow the sons to stop this judgment upon Eli.

I've said this many times, but let's look at how I ended the post to which you refer:

Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH!

Now, my dear friend, Gavin, that is my final comment on the post to which you refer. Not only that, but I've said the same thing perhaps 6 or 7 other places. I hope that clears things up.

I said:

No, I did not say both are true. How you got that idea is unimaginable.

You said:

Really? What about that this, then? (I don't know how you can accuse me of dishonesty!)

I only said that I had no idea how you got the idea. I said nothing about your honesty. But, you quote me saying......

Posted by Arminian on 03-31-2003 03:28 AM: So to answer your question ("Which is it?"), it's one first and then the other.

Ok, I see where you got the idea, but you are misunderstanding what I meant. God is not willing that anyone should perish, so that's what I meant by "first" above. It describes God's attitude towards their eternal destiny, especially prior to God's wrath upon them.

In the situation of Eli's sons, God's wrath upon Eli would be prevented, so that's what I meant by "first one and then the other." God's wrath at the end of their lives includes the desire for them not to repent of their temple sins, so as to prevent the wrath upon Eli and his relatives. (In fact, now that I think about it, Eli wasn't asking them to believe to be saved, just as the deaths of all the relatives did not mean their damnation. But that's not the issue at the moment.)

I actually believe you might have noticed this from the previous post:

“ Posted by Gavin on Yesterday 11:51 PM: So (and I will say this one, last time Jake, so follow me really closely here) the cause of their judgement was their sin, not a mystery. ”

And, as I have said, God's wrath, because it is related to their sin (which you agree), is expressed in his desire for the deaths of Eli's relatives (which you agree). If so there is no mystery why God would not want them to repent, because it is related to his expressed wrath concerning objective sin which he was determined to punish. None of those elements is mysterious (not that you said EACH of them was), so the means and the ends are not mysterious and do not indicate a second will.

Why do you keep tearing down straw men? If you do so, at least please stop telling me to open my eyes, when it is evident it is tough getting you to see the obvious at times as well.

I hope you now understand my position, in context.

Have a great day,

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 02:55 AM

Jake,

Posted by Arminian on Yesterday 04:50 AM:

Gavin, my dear friend,

What a delight to see that you have posted once again.

ok I admit, that was pretty humorous.:lol:

I said:

“ I can't judge your mental state from this distance, but sometimes I really wonder about you, Gavin. I have said time and again that they could NOT have repented. You once claimed to have said that "five times," and I said that I had agreed five times!! OPEN YOUR EYES! ”

you replied:

“ Really? Were you then mistyping when you wrote:

“ Posted by Arminian on 03-28-2003 12:56 AM: The implication of the verse is that if they had repented, God would have spared their lives. LOOK AT THE VERSE: ”

Sigh........ You took my comment out of context. Here is your comment that I was commenting on:

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

My reply to which you refer is a response to your comment above, and the point I was making was that they couldn't have repented because that would have foiled God's plan to punish Eli. Therefore, because God had decided to kill Eli's relatives because of His judgment (which is an expression of his wrath -- to answer your objection above), He could not allow the sons to stop this judgment upon Eli.

I've said this many times, but let's look at how I ended the post to which you refer:

“ Now, one last time, Gavin. If Eli's sons had repented of their DISHONOR toward God, the text suggests that God's wrath concerning their deaths would not have taken place!! If that is so, then God would not have been able to punish them WITH DEATH! ”

Now, my dear friend, Gavin, that is my final comment on the post to which you refer. Not only that, but I've said the same thing perhaps 6 or 7 other places. I hope that clears things up.

I am not really sure how to respond to this. I don't see that the context helps you any - you seem to basically say, well I have said this OTHER thing a lot MORE, so that should clear it up.

One more time, just to be totally clear: barring divine intervention, could the sons of Eli repented?

I only said that I had no idea how you got the idea. I said nothing about your honesty.

I was referring to this from your previous post:

This demonstrates your dishonesty, Gavin.

(In fact, now that I think about it, Eli wasn't asking them to believe to be saved, just as the deaths of all the relatives did not mean their damnation. But that's not the issue at the moment.)

I disagree on this one. Eli's 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?" The idea of there being a sin is not "intercedable", so to speak, implies judgement by God, I think. (Plus I think you would have a tough time proving that God killed someone because he was so angry at their sin, and yet that individual still went to heaven. Earlier you pointed out that the fire on Sodom was "eternal fire" - same idea.)

Okay, no for the more general point. You keep coming back to the unidentified man of God's prophetic judgement and announcement of God's retraction of his good will to Eli in verses 27 and following. This supports the fact that the death of all of Eli's sons was a part of plan - its no problem for Calvinism because we claim that God foreknew all of this stuff in advance.

[continued]

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 02:56 AM

It is clear that the wrath against Eli's sons was not mysterious - but I remain convinced that it is nowhere specifically asserted by this passage that his will for them not to repent was a part of this wrath. You can say, "but if they had repented, then blah blah blah Eli would not have been judged. . . ." But Jake, God would have known whether they would have repented or not beforehand, so it does not matter. If God knew that they would not repent, then there was no danger of them messing up his plan of judgement.

The reason that God's desire for them not to repent and his wrath cannot simply be assumed is that typically, judgement occurs after death when we are before the throne of God. Cases like Sodom and Gomorrah where God kills people beforehand are rather rare and cannot simply assumed.

Also, the judgement in verses 27ff. and on occurs AFTER God's hardens the sons of Eli. So it is not like God said, "uh oh, I better harden them so they don't repent, or else my plan will come to ruin." The plan was formed AFTER his hardening work (although again, he would have foreknown about all of this all along.)

My main reaction to your interpretation of this passage is that you are making a remarkable concession that I am fairly sure many other arminians would not agree with. If you have sources, hopefully more explicit then the Wesley one, that specifically say that God can harden an individual to unrepentance IN THIS LIFE, then hit me. But when you say that the opportunity for repentance can pass while people are still alive, this seems to me to amount to just another two wills theory, such that when we talk about I Timothy 2 and the suppposed "universal saving will of God" we have to remember that some who are still alive may have passed that point where this will applies to them. When we are evangelizing, no longer can we be sure that God wants to save every individual that we share with - they may well be, for all we know, in the same boat as the sons of Eli. The whole rationale and motivation behind the universal saving will of God idea and I Timothy 2 seems to be undermined because, after all, any particular individual may have already passed up their chance and fall under the other will of God. Under your view, we cannot really know if God desires any particular individual to be saved - they may already have passed away the opportunity.

Now how about those Acts verses?

Woman

April 3rd 2003, 04:27 AM

I have questions. Many of you know that I was raised Catholic, so perhaps their understanding of the essence of God is different. But I was taught that God does not have qualities. Not really. That we are forced to discuss God's "nature" in pitiful terms because neither our language or our mind can truly comprehend God. Certainly God has no ego, no passions such as we understand them. So when I hear some of the discussions here, it sounds as though this Christian God is more human like or smaller than the God I learned about. Mind you, the idea of a God which is subject to human foibles is attractive, but is that what you teach? Or is it just that you have to speak metaphorically about the essence of God?

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 05:22 AM

Gavin,

It's great to read your response. My heart was beating hard with anticipation. I was hanging on your every word.

It is clear that the wrath against Eli's sons was not mysterious - but I remain convinced that it is nowhere specifically asserted by this passage that his will for them not to repent was a part of this wrath.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but if you only rely on what is "specifically asserted," you can't say much. In fact, you wouldn't have brought up the verse in the first place. You wouldn't have opened this folder, either.

You can say, "but if they had repented, then blah blah blah Eli would not have been judged. . . ."

Thanks, I think I will: "but if they had repented, then blah blah blah Eli would not have been judged. . . ."

Now I feel better.

But Jake, God would have known whether they would have repented or not beforehand, so it does not matter. If God knew that they would not repent, then there was no danger of them messing up his plan of judgement.

I rest my case. The judgment upon Eli would have been thwarted.

The reason that God's desire for them not to repent and his wrath cannot simply be assumed is that typically, judgement occurs after death

Sigh...This again!? Well, instead of pointing out what I've said time and again, I'll try something else....

Imagine something called "judgment." This "judgment" is simply a "judgment." It's not final judgment, because that occurs after death. So this judgment takes place right now, so apply my argument to that judgment of which I now speak (which is not final judgment).

Now, what I just said is what I've been saying for days on end, but for some reason you keep retuning to that "final judgment" idea so that you can burn it in effigy. That idea is powerful and biblical, yet I have not used it in order that, for the sake of argument, the discussion could advance. So, if you return to that argument, you should note that everyone already knows that I'm not referring to it, and they are wondering why you are.

when we are before the throne of God. Cases like Sodom and Gomorrah where God kills people beforehand are rather rare and cannot simply assumed.

[insert sarcastic remark here along with an expression of frustration]

Also, the judgement in verses 27ff. and on occurs AFTER God's hardens the sons of Eli. So it is not like God said, "uh oh, I better harden them so they don't repent, or else my plan will come to ruin." The plan was formed AFTER his hardening work (although again, he would have foreknown about all of this all along.)

On the contrary, it was his plan all along. You're starting to sound like an OVer. If God wanted to kill them as part of his wrath, then it only makes sense that he wanted to do it once his wrath was complete. It only makes sense that God was already upset, and someone explaining the situation to Eli a little later does not negate that, but instead explains and delineates it.

My main reaction to your interpretation of this passage is that you are making a remarkable concession that I am fairly sure many other arminians would not agree with. If you have sources, hopefully more explicit then the Wesley one, that specifically say that God can harden an individual to unrepentance IN THIS LIFE, then hit me.

The idea isn't one of damning them, but of giving them over to their own passions. I could quote Arnold on this, but he says the same thing as Wesley (in fact he quotes him). I could quote a few others, but who cares? We aren't voting.

Again, the idea is expressed in Psalms 32:

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.

God desires the repentace of everyone. But he doesn't desire repentance under the condition that it has to be forced. Why didn't the sons listen to their father? Because God did not want his words to go to them because they were like horses and mules that had to be controlled by bit and bridle. God wanted to kill them for that very reason.

But when you say that the opportunity for repentance can pass while people are still alive, this seems to me to amount to just another two wills theory, such that when we talk about I Timothy 2 and the suppposed "universal saving will of God" we have to remember that some who are still alive may have passed that point where this will applies to them.

Death here isn't the equivalent of damnation, or Eli and all his relatives went to hell because the sons were raised improperly.

So, yes, I do still hold to a universal desire for repentance to salvation.

Now how about those Acts verses?

My response is ready. I'm looking for a source on a quote of Matheson from a sermon. I may have to post without it.

I look forward to reading your next delightful post. The anticipation is almost unbearable!!

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 05:45 AM

Woman,

You made some great observations. I agree that the human mind can't even begin to understand God. Our language is primitive at best.

But I don't understand what you mean when you say that God has no qualities.

geoff

April 3rd 2003, 05:59 AM

Just as an aside, the ONLY human mind to fully comprehend God, is Jesus, the one who came from Heaven.

Blake Reas

April 3rd 2003, 01:10 PM

Today @ 08:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51971#post51971)
Woman:

I have questions. Many of you know that I was raised Catholic, so perhaps their understanding of the essence of God is different. But I was taught that God does not have qualities. Not really. That we are forced to discuss God's "nature" in pitiful terms because neither our language or our mind can truly comprehend God. Certainly God has no ego, no passions such as we understand them. So when I hear some of the discussions here, it sounds as though this Christian God is more human like or smaller than the God I learned about. Mind you, the idea of a God which is subject to human foibles is attractive, but is that what you teach? Or is it just that you have to speak metaphorically about the essence of God?

You did make some very good observations here. I believe that the Catholics(since Aquinas was a big Catholic Theologian) follow a analogical mode of interpretation just as Calvin did where as the Open Theist despises this method and invokes the Univocal mode which ends up comprimising his Transcendence for His Immanence. They do make God human in a sense though they are not as bad as Mormons. They will object to this but they cannot really get around it.
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 02:36 PM

Jake did you see my first post?

Perhaps your heart was beating so hard with anticipation that you simply overlooked it.:brow:

So who voted other?

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 03:36 PM

Beloved Gavin,

Jake did you see my first post?

No, I guess I didn't. I've been suffering from a problem that affects my vision (it comes and goes), so I'll probably miss more. Right now I can only focus on a few words at a time.

Perhaps your heart was beating so hard with anticipation that you simply overlooked it.

It's like finding an extra gift under the Chrismas tree!!

So who voted other?

Woman, I suspect.

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 04:10 PM

Gavin,

I am not really sure how to respond to this. I don't see that the context helps you any - you seem to basically say, well I have said this OTHER thing a lot MORE, so that should clear it up.

Sigh...... I was simply showing that you were confused because you took me out of context. I didn't make the conflicting comment that you accused me of. I can't tell from your comment above if you understand that or not. I almost don't care. Regardless, my comment in context will back me up.

One more time, just to be totally clear: barring divine intervention, could the sons of Eli repented?

It's the converse. Without divine intervention they could not have repented. My comment concering Psalms 32:9 addresses that. (At least I hope. I'm having a hard time reading.)

God killed someone because he was so angry at their sin, and yet that individual still went to heaven.

It certainly does imply judgment. Ananias and Sapphira were judged. Also Paul says that some in the church at Corinth are sick and dead because of their abuse of communion. Both involved judgment. I think that the judgment of death does end life, but where that dead person goes depends on whether or not they trusted God. Either way, it "seals the deal." This judgment was shared by all the members of Eli's house.

I disagree on this one. Eli's 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?" The idea of there being a sin is not "intercedable", so to speak, implies judgement by God, I think.

I think that the sin IS "intercedable," but not apart from God. In other words, there is no alternative other than God.

Of course, if you believe they committed an unforgivable sin, then your purpose for bringing up the verse is moot.

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 04:57 PM

Wow I cannot believe you are saying that the sons of Eli went to heaven so long as they trusted in God.

Expect a fuller reply later.

Good lucking with your reading problems!

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 06:38 PM

Gaivn,

Wow I cannot believe you are saying that the sons of Eli went to heaven so long as they trusted in God.

I said death is not the same as damnation. If I remember correctly, the Hebrew literally says they were "sons of Belial," which really reflects badly upon them, so death "sealed the deal." As for Eli and the relatives, that's another issue.

What I can't believe is that you are saying that God foreknew they would repent and had to actively move to stop it.

Woman

April 3rd 2003, 07:06 PM

Arminian:

Woman,

You made some great observations. I agree that the human mind can't even begin to understand God. Our language is primitive at best.

But I don't understand what you mean when you say that God has no qualities.

I found this which explains more or less what I mean:

Sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature -- more especially a magnified man -- and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox.

Reason, as we have seen, teaches that God is one simple and infinitely perfect spiritual substance or nature. Sacred Scripture and the Church teach the same. The creeds, for example, usually begin with a profession of faith in the one true God, Who is omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite. The best way in which we can describe the Divine nature is to say that it is infinitely perfect, or that God is the infinitely perfect Being; but we must always remember that even being itself, the most abstract and universal term we possess, is predicated of God and of creatures not univocally or identically, but only analogically. But other predicates, which, as applied to creatures, express certain specific determinations of being, are also used of God -- analogically, if in themselves they express pure or unmixed perfection, but only metaphorically if they necessarily connote imperfection. Now of such predicates as applied to creatures we distinguish between those that are used in the concrete to denote being as such more or less determined (v.g., substance, spirit, etc.), and those that are used in the abstract or adjectively to denote determinations, or qualities, or attributes of being (v.g., good, goodness; intelligent, intelligence, etc.); and we find it useful to transfer this distinction to God, and to speak of the Divine nature or essence and Divine attributes being careful at the same time, by insisting on Divine simplicity, to avoid error or contradiction in its application. For, as applied to God, the distinction between nature and attributes, and between the attributes themselves, is merely logical and not real. The finite mind is not capable of comprehending the Infinite so as adequately to describe its essence by any single concept or term; but while using a multitude of terms, all of which are analogically true, we do not mean to imply that there is any kind of composition in God. Thus, as applied to creatures, goodness and justice, for example, are distinct from each other and from the nature or substance of the beings in whom they are found, and if finite limitations compel us to speak of such perfections in God as if they were similarly distinct, we know, nevertheless, and are ready, when needful, to explain, that this is not really so, but that all Divine attributes are really identical with one another and with the Divine essence.

Arminian

April 3rd 2003, 07:23 PM

Woman,

Thanks.

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 11:22 PM

Jake,

:thumb: :thumb: for the clarity, precision, and tone of your last post.

your dear friend,
Gavin

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 11:33 PM

Jake,

I said death is not the same as damnation.

I know that is what I find very strange.

If I remember correctly, the Hebrew literally says they were "sons of Belial," which really reflects badly upon them, so death "sealed the deal."

In other words, scratch what you just said because the death is damnation in this instance?:huh:

What I can't believe is that you are saying that God foreknew they would repent and had to actively move to stop it.

What I can't believe is that you think I think that.:teeth:

In all seriousness, I really wish you would stop with all the strawmen. I don't believe anything of the sort.

As for the rest, would you be ticked off if I told you I was getting bored here?

geoff

April 4th 2003, 01:41 AM

Arminian is open view?

gosh :/

and I thought he was arminian

Blake Reas

April 4th 2003, 03:27 AM

I would like to say I am sorry to Arminian, even though I know the never got to see my post I referred to him as OV. I deleted it because of my ignorance. Thanks for the correction Geoff.
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

Arminian

April 4th 2003, 05:03 AM

Gavin,

Me:
I said death is not the same as damnation.

You:

I know that is what I find very strange.

Me

If I remember correctly, the Hebrew literally says they were "sons of Belial," which really reflects badly upon them, so death "sealed the deal.

You:

In other words, scratch what you just said because the death is damnation in this instance?

Again, you need to think of the ark analogy. Or better yet, whose side you are on when you die. If God kills someone who is going to hell, then that seals the deal. However, unless I am wrong, I don't think you believe that Eli and all his relatives went to hell, even though the death was upon them also. It least, I have yet to see you write that.

In all seriousness, I really wish you would stop with all the strawmen. I don't believe anything of the sort.

OK, I looked back, and now that I can read a whole sentence at a time, I can see that you didn't say what I thought you were saying. You actually said that God foreknew that the eternal covenant would be broken (but what you actually believe is that God caused it to be broken).

As for the rest, would you be ticked off if I told you I was getting bored here?

That's fine. I'll just pine for you.

Arminian

April 4th 2003, 05:27 AM

Blake,

I would like to say I am sorry to Arminian, even though I know the never got to see my post I referred to him as OV.

I did get to see it, but because I don't know you, I just thought I'd let you blow off some steam.

In your post you said that I wouldn't answer her post or would just blow it off. I didn't comment on the post because I'm suffering from narrow vision related to hemiplegic migraine, which is a condition that comes and goes (oddly, I never feel any pain). The post is very long (relatively speaking), so I couldn't finish it until now. (The condition also sometimes affects my speach, <---spelling, face and my left hand. One time the only thing I could say was "Red truck." hehehe)

However, looking over the post, it is very philosophical, so if you want to discuss Thomistic philosophical theology (which is what that is), then you've found the man with the right credentials.

But, as I alluded a few days ago, the truth won't be found in even our most brilliant philosophical ramblings. The narrative was the theology of the writer, and if it was what he or she wanted me to know and understand, then that's what I want to know and understand. If he or she had wanted me to understand philosophy, then he or she would have written that.

Think about this: Moses wrote his own theology book. Do you know what it is? It's the Pentateuch. Now, do you think you can improve on his theology book? I really doubt it.

So I hope you can now somehow grasp my mild aversion to systematic theology and my desire to be a better Biblical theologian. These types of discussions are full of sensus plenior, and that's why I feel the need to take a shower.

geoff

April 4th 2003, 07:49 AM

ah but arminian, biblical theology without systemization (is there such a word?) is like a bunch of individualist football players. Anyone of them can be a game breaker, but they they dont reach their full potential until they are working together as a team :)

Arminian

April 4th 2003, 11:30 PM

geoff,

ah but arminian, biblical theology without systemization (is there such a word?) is like a bunch of individualist football players.

Moses did have systemization.

geoff

April 5th 2003, 02:15 AM

Moses would have been inhuman if he didnt try and organise his understanding of God. Its the nature of (most) humans to organise things into logical groups and systems in order to understand "the big picture".

I think you will find that "biblical" theologians and systematic theologians need each other - biblical theologians keep the systematics real, and the systematics help the biblicals with "the big picture".

One is better than the other, they both have their place.

Blake Reas

April 5th 2003, 03:06 AM

Yesterday @ 09:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Arminian:

Blake,

[quote]I did get to see it, but because I don't know you, I just thought I'd let you blow off some steam.

Thanks I appreciate it.

In your post you said that I wouldn't answer her post or would just blow it off. I didn't comment on the post because I'm suffering from narrow vision related to hemiplegic migraine, which is a condition that comes and goes (oddly, I never feel any pain). The post is very long (relatively speaking), so I couldn't finish it until now. (The condition also sometimes affects my speach, <---spelling, face and my left hand. One time the only thing I could say was "Red truck." hehehe)

sorry to hear about that I will make sure I keep that in my prayers (seriously). I had a teacher once that suffered from the same thing she would just put her head down on her desk and not move somedays it is really a sad thing.

However, looking over the post, it is very philosophical, so if you want to discuss Thomistic philosophical theology (which is what that is), then you've found the man with the right credentials.

Ok sounds good. I do think that God is beyond our grasp unless God gives us analogies to lead us by the hand.

But, as I alluded a few days ago, the truth won't be found in even our most brilliant philosophical ramblings. The narrative was the theology of the writer, and if it was what he or she wanted me to know and understand, then that's what I want to know and understand. If he or she had wanted me to understand philosophy, then he or she would have written that.
I agree that philosophy can be very vain. I agree that each book was written in a time and context but you do not believe that God could use it to show his complexity all through out the Bible? If I see a passage that shows that God is totally soveriegn and all knowing in one place and another that says he is ignorant then you have to realize that the ignorance passage is only making a certain point about the narrative as is the other "control passages". A better example would be in the Gospel of John where it says " No one has seen the Father" well that seems contradict the Exodus account of Sinai (I am acting like a ignorant Skeptic here) so what does it all mean? Well what we notice about the Sinai account and the incarnation is that it is God's veiled Glory for if Moses or anyone else saw Him as He is truly in Himself they would surely die. So God accomadates Himself to us in his glory (ie. Lisping to us) So I do not think it is as abstract philosophically as you are claiming I think it comes from the very soil of Scripture! From Genesis through Revelation it is God's veiled Glory being revealed(through analogy)!

Think about this: Moses wrote his own theology book. Do you know what it is? It's the Pentateuch. Now, do you think you can improve on his theology book? I really doubt it.

Well yeah he did write theology it was about God and His dealings with his people. I do not think I can improve his theology. This is nothing but a Strawman tactic, Arminian, and you know it. So go blow if off somewhere else.

So I hope you can now somehow grasp my mild aversion to systematic theology and my desire to be a better Biblical theologian. These types of discussions are full of sensus plenior, and that's why I feel the need to take a shower.
I understand that you have aversion from Systematics as I believe Gray Pilgrim does also (at least that is what we discussed) he favors biblical theology like you do also and he is a Calvinist so I think your claim is rather unfounded. I to would like to be a bettter biblical theologian because I know that I lack in that area since I have not been a Christian all that long compared to you and other people on this board I can admit I have a lot to learn. But I see a God of immense Glory as portrayed in the Scriptures can only be communicated to us analogically! I hope you enjoyed your shower!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

Arminian

April 5th 2003, 05:58 AM

Geoff,

Moses would have been inhuman if he didnt try and organise his understanding of God. Its the nature of (most) humans to organise things into logical groups and systems in order to understand

Believe me, we're not talking about the same thing. "Organizing understanding" seems redundant.

geebob

April 5th 2003, 11:58 AM

Arminian, it looks like a lot of useful and relevent material, but combined, I notice that all of these posts would go beyond the maximum 24k permitted. The rules prohibit breaking up the post to get around the software limitation unless each post is directed to a different member's response.

I believe there are ways to get around the limitation within the rules of the forum and that would be to post an article, and If you'd like to do that in the future, I'd pm yxboom or DDW about it if I were you, but you will still have to refrain from doing it in the forums.

Blake Reas

April 5th 2003, 01:49 PM

Note the quite apparent superficiality and totally inadequate view of the significance of the Bible. Its assumption of a uniform revelation throughout the Scriptures was a notable one, but unfortunately it was not those very Scriptures which determined this uniform theology. Instead of permitting the Scripture to speak for itself, this method sought to compress the Bible within the narrow confines of the theologian's own dogmatic
system.

Furthermore, by limiting the attention to a very few isolated passages it could hardly do justice to the whole theological system as set forth in the Scriptures themselves. The method of arranging Biblical concepts was naive and superficial, it was derived not from the Bible itself but from an extraneous doctrinal theology. Equally serious is the prevalence of fallacious exegesis whereby meanings were read into a text without any consideration
of its obvious sense.

I agree with what you said. Contrary to what you said, if you would have read my posts I did not claim to know everything. I learned a lot from you post, and I appreciate how you showed that people do abuse biblical text. I do not think I ever quoted any Proof Texts. It is also wrong when someone interprets in that light throught the lens of Calvinism or Arminianism.

I am actually reading Geehardus Vos right now trying to learn some stuff about Biblical Theology. If you have anyother authors just tell me.
. No matter what we do if Postmodernism has tought us anything is that we all come to the text with certain presuppositions. That does not rule out that there is a real reading or meaning in the text we just have to work extra hard to find it. I also would like to say again that I appreciate you post and I am sorry if I got on your nerves since you apparently said you do not have much patience.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

Blake Reas

April 5th 2003, 01:57 PM

I'll post what's below for others (shortened in consideration of my friend, Gavin), because you are obviously too advanced to learn anything from me and my strawmen. You're better off with Gray, who I'm confident is just as advanced as I, but apparently has the patience that I don't [have].

Like I said I am not to advanced to learn anything from anyone. You again here psycholgize me it seems as if you got your degree in psychology from somewhere Arminian are you sure you are in Biblical Studies? This is the Strawman I am talking about just like in the earlier post you try and make your opponent look like an idiot. I do not think all of your post are strawmen I think that they are rather good normally just to let you know. Maybe you can through that in next time you try to analyze my thought paterns ehhh?
:argh:
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

Gavin

April 5th 2003, 05:08 PM

Jake,

I'll post what's below for others (shortened in consideration of my friend, Gavin)

How extraordinarily decent of you!

because you are obviously too advanced to learn anything from me and my strawmen.

The best way to deal with these, Blake, is to just ignore them. He tries to be inflamattory and he likes the "tone", but I think deep down Arminian is a softy, as am I. :teeth:

Pretty soon you will have him calling you "beloved" and your "good friend"!! :brow:

Arminian

April 5th 2003, 06:47 PM

What posts are you people talking about? :angel:

Arminian

April 5th 2003, 06:50 PM

The best way to deal with these, Blake, is to just ignore them.

Ignore reverse psychology? :no:

Gavin

April 7th 2003, 01:58 PM

So . . . comments on Acts?

Arminian

April 7th 2003, 08:07 PM

So . . . comments on Acts?

Are you done taking a break?

Gavin

April 7th 2003, 08:16 PM

I think I have taken a permenent break from discussing I Samuel 2:25 with you. But if you want to move on, so be it.

Are you going to reply to my pm?

Arminian

April 7th 2003, 08:28 PM

Gavin,

Sorry, I didn't see that PM. I don't really keep up with that option as well as I should.

Anyhow, my respose on Acts just needs to be posted, once I look over it one more time. I'll post it when I get home or in the morning if what you asked me to do (in the PM) doesn't take too long.

Gavin

April 7th 2003, 08:32 PM

Jake,

sounds good. :thumb:

sincerely,
Gavin

Arminian

April 8th 2003, 08:10 PM

Gavin,

God predestined the death of Christ. The death of Christ, including "whatever" happened to him at the hands of Herod, Pilate, all the Gentiles and Jewish leaders involved in his trial and crucifiction, was according to the definite plan and predestination of God. Furthermore, in Isaiah 53:10 we read that "It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief". So clearly, in one sense, it was the will of God that Christ die.

Yet God would also hold those who crucified him accountable for this sin. In this sense it was clearly not God's will for them to crucify Christ. Hence his moral will is distinguished from his sovereign will.

I don't see how two wills are involved here. First, it was clearly God's will that Christ die:

Matt 16:
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Mark 10:
45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

John 10:
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Those are just a sample, but the Bible is very clear that Christ's life was not taken from him ("no one takes it from me"), but instead God gave man the authority to do what they did, because that was God's plan all along.

Yet God would also hold those who crucified him accountable for this sin. In this sense it was clearly not God's will for them to crucify Christ.

On the contrary, it was God's will that these evil men kill Christ. It was his plan all along. How this was accomplished is another matter. My argument is that God both foreknew what they would do, and also used their ignorance to fulfill his plan.

Acts 4:

27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[1] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

The issue here isn't whether or not God determined what would happen beforehand, but how this was accomplished. Peter is very clear that God accomplished this by first allowing the people to have authority over Christ, using his foreknowlege, and also using their ignorace to accomplish his plan.

In the verses just before the ones you quoted, Peter quotes David asking why the nations rage against Christ. The point is that their plot was "in vain." That's because they were doing what God had predestined be done to Jesus. As Matheson explains:

The idea is that their effort of opposition to the divine will proved to be a stroke of alliance with it...They met together in a council of war against Christ; unconsciously to themselves they signed a treaty for the promotion of Christ's glory...Our God does not need to beat down the storms that rise against Him; he rides upon them; he works through them.

Acts 2:

23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

God's "set purpose" for "handing" Christ over to those wicked men was to have him killed. God foreknew this would happen. God wasn't caught off guard, but they were.

Acts 3:
15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.

Above, the audience is told that they killed Christ. They are told that they acted in ingorance and THAT'S HOW God fulfilled what he had planned to do. God used their ignorance to accomplish his goal.

Arminian

April 8th 2003, 08:24 PM

I can't finish editing my last post because I keep getting interrupted. I wanted to include a few more verses. But here's the last for now.

Acts 13

27The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.

Again, the idea is that God used their ignorance to fulfill Scripture.

Gavin

April 8th 2003, 10:44 PM

Jake,

thanks for the brevity and simplicity of your post.

It is true that, in a sense, they acted in ignorance. This is undeniable based off chapter 3 verse 18. But does that mean there act was morally innocent? NO!! (And I don't know whether you would say that or not.)

They sinned by crucifying Christ, which almost goes without saying. Hence the command to repent in verse 19. And in 2:23 he says that their accomplices were "wicked men". It just goes without saying that to kill an innocent man is sinful and wrong. It is against God's law in the Old Testament, for example, "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:25). See also 1 Samuel 19:5 on the moral wrongness of killing an innocent person. I suspect you agree with this so far.

Yet you say that there is only one, indistinguishable will in God. Yet you also say that it was clearly God's will that Christ die.

So here is the question - can God's will be, at times, for people to sin? I will reply when you have answered this. If you say yes (which I think is undeniable from above statement), then I will argue that "God's will" is used interchangably in Scripture to not sinning (eg., 1 Thessalonians 4:3, I Peter 2:15), so some kind of distinction must be made between different ways that God wills.

My argument is that God both foreknew what they would do, and also used their ignorance to fulfill his plan.

By the way, that is fine and I agree with that. But it does not really, in my opinon, address the issue of God's will. More on this to come.

geoff

April 8th 2003, 10:54 PM

How can ANYONE say it is God's will for people to Sin? Thats an oxymoron. You can not punish for Sin, and then will the sin to happen. It would be like a judge hiring a hitman to kill someone and then sentencing him to death for the Crime.

That is why there is NOT 2 wills in God.

Gavin

April 8th 2003, 11:49 PM

Geoff,

thanks for your post.

How can ANYONE say it is God's will for people to Sin? Thats an oxymoron. You can not punish for Sin, and then will the sin to happen. It would be like a judge hiring a hitman to kill someone and then sentencing him to death for the Crime.

That is why there is NOT 2 wills in God.

That is very interesting. Although the conclusion you draw from your body paragraph is that there cannot be two wills in God, I am rather convinced that you have correctly delineated why there must be two wills in God. Let me explain what I mean.

For God to will people to sin and then punish them for those sins may seem absurd, but if you think about it, that is very problem that the two wills theory is created to solve. God wills that no men ever sin at one level, but at another mysterious level ("behind the scenes" if you will) he actually does will sin.

Of course, if you can prove that God never wills sin, then the two wills theory falls apart (to an extent); but you have not yet proven that. And I have made something of a case for it with my verses in Acts about Jesus' death (see above reply to Arminian).

By the way, your analogy should be harsher, because under it, the hitman could still have refused to do the work, and thus remained morally blameless. A better analogy would be sovereignly causing someone to be a hitman (Although there of course are no perfect human analogies for how God forms the hearts of people in his sovereignty).

My presupposition, of course, is that (1) human free will and thus moral responsibility for his actions and (2) God's sovereign choices to determine reality as he sees fit for his ultimate sovereign purposes - that these two are not incompatible, because they are both taught by Scripture.

Psalm 33:15
he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do.

Blessings,
Gavin

geoff

April 9th 2003, 03:11 AM

Hi Gavin,

I am glad you find it interesting. Personally I think the 2 wills thing to be a tad contrived. Its trying to explain away a misunderstanding by a misunderstanding.

God does not will people to Sin, sin happens because people choose it. There is no need to explain that away. There is no need for a "mysterious" other level.
Of course the Hitman could choose something else, but the judge, being God, would have to have known, and/or made it impossible for the hitman to choose anything else. Thus making the Judge legally culpable as you know.

Now, I dont find the Jesus example particularly convincing. Mainly Because Jesus was in fact God. He came from heaven for the purpose of redeeming humanity. That was his chosen purpose, his own plan, His destiny. Of course it was according to Gods plan and definate forknowledge. He planned it, He carried it out. That is what makes it so incredible.

Of course, there is a possibility that God in human form may have given in to His human nature, which adds to the whole deal considerably. It doesnt however, create a need to have 2 wills in God.

My assumption is this, that God knows all things, including the freewill choices of all people, and works them all into His-story. He neither wills (causes) good deeds or evil. The misconception is that knowing, causes. Which of course, is wrong.

geoff

April 9th 2003, 03:15 AM

arminian

Believe me, we're not talking about the same thing. "Organizing understanding" seems redundant.

Organising ones understanding about God, is called systematising ones theology, or, systematic theology.

Hardly redundant.

Gavin

April 9th 2003, 03:26 AM

Geoff,

Hi Gavin,

I am glad you find it interesting. Personally I think the 2 wills thing to be a tad contrived. Its trying to explain away a misunderstanding by a misunderstanding.

God does not will people to Sin, sin happens because people choose it. There is no need to explain that away. There is no need for a "mysterious" other level.
Of course the Hitman could choose something else, but the judge, being God, would have to have known, and/or made it impossible for the hitman to choose anything else. Thus making the Judge legally culpable as you know.

Now, I dont find the Jesus example particularly convincing. Mainly Because Jesus was in fact God. He came from heaven for the purpose of redeeming humanity. That was his chosen purpose, his own plan, His destiny. Of course it was according to Gods plan and definate forknowledge. He planned it, He carried it out. That is what makes it so incredible.

Of course, there is a possibility that God in human form may have given in to His human nature, which adds to the whole deal considerably. It doesnt however, create a need to have 2 wills in God.

My assumption is this, that God knows all things, including the freewill choices of all people, and works them all into His-story. He neither wills (causes) good deeds or evil. The misconception is that knowing, causes. Which of course, is wrong.

Right. All that is fine if God never wills sin. But as I have tried to show from the two verses in Acts and the one in Isaiah 53, it was clearly God's will that Christ die - and yet this death could only happen through the sinful acts of men. "Whatever" happened to Christ at the hands of sinful men was in line with his sovereign plan/will, according to Acts 4:27ff.

Acts 4:27-28
"Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

Thoughts?

Arminian

April 9th 2003, 04:13 AM

Gavin,

It is true that, in a sense, they acted in ignorance. This is undeniable based off chapter 3 verse 18. But does that mean there act was morally innocent? NO!! (And I don't know whether you would say that or not.)

No, I don't think they were morally innocent. Rather, my point was that because of their ignorance (not "innocence"), God was able to use their hostility to accomplish His plan.

They sinned by crucifying Christ, which almost goes without saying. Hence the command to repent in verse 19. And in 2:23 he says that their accomplices were "wicked men".

Correct. What they did was wrong, but not the result of a second will. Christ's act of altruism was not wrong. See my post for details of how this was accomplished.

It just goes without saying that to kill an innocent man is sinful and wrong. It is against God's law in the Old Testament, for example, "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:25). See also 1 Samuel 19:5 on the moral wrongness of killing an innocent person. I suspect you agree with this so far.

Correct.

Yet you say that there is only one, indistinguishable will in God.

Correct.

So here is the question - can God's will be, at times, for people to sin?

I guess it depends on the context of the question. As I said before, if "two wills" is a reference to two different situations (taking into account contignencies and conditions within the context), I may not disagree. However, if the claim is that there is a mysterious second will, dependent upon a "will in a vacuum" that appears to be in conflict with "another will," I will have to say that I have yet to find evidence of it. (Remember, I spoke of "handing people over to Satan.")

For example, it is not my will that my son receive a speeding ticket (especially since he can't drive!). However, should he speed, it is my will that he receive a speeding ticket, yet my first expression of my will stands, in context.

Or, I may say that president Bush desires peace. I may also say that he wants to fight against Saddam. These statements only conflict when the most nominal meaning is kept and forced out of any meaningful context.

I will reply when you have answered this. If you say yes (which I think is undeniable from above statement), then I will argue that "God's will" is used interchangably in Scripture to not sinning (eg., 1 Thessalonians 4:3, I Peter 2:15), so some kind of distinction must be made between different ways that God wills.

Please do make your distinction.

I'll also make a distinction when you are done.

geoff

April 9th 2003, 04:37 AM

Gavin,

My thoughts are the same, Gods plan was for Jesus to do what He did, along with the foreknown actions of the people.

Gods plan for Jesus was foreknown and predestined to occur in accordance with his foreknowledge of the actions of the people.
Nice :)

Sheepdog

April 9th 2003, 01:21 PM

alright, i think i am going to interject my thoughts here, and if they have already been responded to, my apologize-- i haven't read this entire thread.

i think the whole "two wills" nonsense needs a good shave by Occam's Razor. there is no need to believe in two wills, because one is sufficient. i say this because, God's will isn't this mysterious list of stuff we are to do and not to do. rather, God's will is his desire, by definition. God desires that His creatures love Him freely. so, enters the choice between God and sin. God also wills that we be on a right track, so sometimes the only way to get us on that right track is through suffering.

the Bible doesn't tell us to throw our hands in the air an vainly wonder "what is God's will for my life?" instead, we are to echo the Psalmist's prayer, Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground. Psalm 143:10. Notice, David here doesn't ask that God reveals His will: He asks that God will teach David to do it. This assumes that David already knows what God's will is.

He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him Ephesians 1:9. He has revealed His will to us.

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20,21. Note, the writer of Hebrews assumes here his readers know God's will, it is being equiped to do it that he is concerned with.

i propose this: it is defeating to ask God what His will is for your future mate, your job, how you do ministry, etc. You know what God's will is: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Matt. 22:37.

Bringing this back to the context of the thread, we see that it is God's will that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). It is also God's will that we all have choice (John 15:4,5). often, these conflict, however. does that mean God has two wills? nope. i believe both these aspects represent the same will, that He desires that people engage in a loving relationship with Him.

geoff

April 10th 2003, 04:51 AM

...God's will is his desire, by definition

You started so well...
and then.. sigh.

Gods will is NOT His desires necessarily. Will implicates cause, and desire does not. Will is acting on Choice, desire may cause choice, but then, so can circumstance, etc.
My desire to eat chocolate MAY result in me eating chocolate, but my will to eat it most certain results in my eating it (*certainly* if I was omnipotent).

God 's desire is that all peope are saved, which results in some being saved. Its not "will" at all. Its desire. Gods will results in His causing thing to be according to His choices.

Sheepdog

April 10th 2003, 02:50 PM

:hrm: i don't know. i've never understood someone's will being actionary. seems like you are confusing the noun "will" with the verb (i.e. i will run for president). but then again, maybe there is a connotation in the original text that i missed?

Gavin

April 10th 2003, 03:58 PM

Jake,

I guess it depends on the context of the question. As I said before, if "two wills" is a reference to two different situations (taking into account contignencies and conditions within the context), I may not disagree. However, if the claim is that there is a mysterious second will, dependent upon a "will in a vacuum" that appears to be in conflict with "another will," I will have to say that I have yet to find evidence of it. (Remember, I spoke of "handing people over to Satan.")

For example, it is not my will that my son receive a speeding ticket (especially since he can't drive!). However, should he speed, it is my will that he receive a speeding ticket, yet my first expression of my will stands, in context.

Or, I may say that president Bush desires peace. I may also say that he wants to fight against Saddam. These statements only conflict when the most nominal meaning is kept and forced out of any meaningful context.

It sounds like you are agreeing that there can be two wills in God, but just not like the two I believe in.

Okay, first, you continually misrepresent my position concerning the two wills, and thus make your rejection of it more plausible. For example, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it is dependant on a will in a vacuum. Also, I never said that the two wills are in conflict (and this is not the first time I have corrected you on this). And finally, God's sovereign will is not "mysterious" in the sense that it is weird or arcane or capricious. It is "mysterious" only in the sense that we are unable to know it fully.

You need to come to a better understanding of what we mean by "sovereign will". It doesn't mean that God capriciously contradicts himself, or something weird like that. It simply means that there is a way in which God wills which is different from his moral will - the Marshall quote sums it up well - we must distinguish between what God would like to see happen on the one hand and what he actually wills to happen on the other. There is nothing conflicting in talking about what God generally would prefer to see happen, and what God actually wants to specifically come about. And there is nothing particularly "mysterious" about this in the pejorative sense.

Our claim is that reality unfolding is simly God's sovereign will coming to pass.

As for the two examples you gave about Bush fighting Saddam and so forth, I would say that they are an apt description of what I am talking about - two wills don't necessarily conflict.

Now for the verses in Acts.

27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Basically, it was God's will that Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the Jews and Gentiles involved, all conspire against Jesus. This verse shows that it was God's will for these men to sin (in a sense).

This is corroborated by Acts 2:27

"This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God."

It is seen even more obviously in Isaiah 53:10
"It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief."

So the conclusion is that in one sense God willed the death of Christ. It is not the case that he merely foreknew and used the sinful actions of men. It is the case that he willed them (based on these Scriptures).

Yet surely you see the problem. You admit that Christ's death came about by sinful actions - and yet God's will is also spoken of as synonomous to his reveaed moral instruction.

"Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will (thelema) of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). "The one who does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:17).

So my argument is that some distinction needs to be made between what God willed men to do to Christ in crucifying him, and what he willed men not to do by holding them accountable for their actions. These wills are not in conflict or "mysterious" in the pejorative sense - they merely express the difference between what God would like to see happen, and what God actually wills to come about.

Thoughts?

Gavin

April 10th 2003, 04:02 PM

Sheepdog,

i think the whole "two wills" nonsense needs a good shave by Occam's Razor. there is no need to believe in two wills, because one is sufficient. i say this because, God's will isn't this mysterious list of stuff we are to do and not to do. rather, God's will is his desire, by definition. God desires that His creatures love Him freely. so, enters the choice between God and sin. God also wills that we be on a right track, so sometimes the only way to get us on that right track is through suffering.

the Bible doesn't tell us to throw our hands in the air an vainly wonder "what is God's will for my life?" instead, we are to echo the Psalmist's prayer, Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground. Psalm 143:10. Notice, David here doesn't ask that God reveals His will: He asks that God will teach David to do it. This assumes that David already knows what God's will is.

He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him Ephesians 1:9. He has revealed His will to us.

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20,21. Note, the writer of Hebrews assumes here his readers know God's will, it is being equiped to do it that he is concerned with.

i propose this: it is defeating to ask God what His will is for your future mate, your job, how you do ministry, etc. You know what God's will is: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Matt. 22:37.

Bringing this back to the context of the thread, we see that it is God's will that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). It is also God's will that we all have choice (John 15:4,5). often, these conflict, however. does that mean God has two wills? nope. i believe both these aspects represent the same will, that He desires that people engage in a loving relationship with Him.

Showing that God's moral will is revealed in Scripture does not prove that there is such thing as God's sovereign will.

Blessings,
Gavin

Arminian

April 10th 2003, 04:49 PM

Gavin,

It sounds like you are agreeing that there can be two wills in God, but just not like the two I believe in.

I don't think so. I'm talking about a single will that reflects the circumstances. There is no reason for salvation if there is no wrath. Each serves as a showcase for the other.

Okay, first, you continually misrepresent my position concerning the two wills, and thus make your rejection of it more plausible. For example, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it is dependant on a will in a vacuum. Also, I never said that the two wills are in conflict (and this is not the first time I have corrected you on this). And finally, God's sovereign will is not "mysterious" in the sense that it is weird or arcane or capricious. It is "mysterious" only in the sense that we are unable to know it fully.

Your point is that it's his will because it's his will. Therefore, you call it mysterious. My point is that when you point out these "apparently conflicting wills," (my words) you are forced to do so because you want to make the reason remote ("in a vacuum")

You need to come to a better understanding of what we mean by "sovereign will".

I understand what you mean. It still doesn't make sense.

As for the two examples you gave about Bush fighting Saddam and so forth, I would say that they are an apt description of what I am talking about - two wills don't necessarily conflict.

They don't conflict, and there is no reson to resort to "mystery." Bush desires peace, but his response to rejection of peace is war. In other words, the will is there, but the outcome has contingencies.

Now for the verses in Acts.

27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Basically, it was God's will that Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the Jews and Gentiles involved, all conspire against Jesus. This verse shows that it was God's will for these men to sin (in a sense).

This is corroborated by Acts 2:27

"This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God."

It is seen even more obviously in Isaiah 53:10
"It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief."

So the conclusion is that in one sense God willed the death of Christ. It is not the case that he merely foreknew and used the sinful actions of men. It is the case that he willed them (based on these Scriptures).

The verses say that Christ was "delivered" to sinful man by his plan and foreknowledge. Your attempt to make the verses mean that God caused them to sin is unconvincing. The fact is that every time Luke records how God accomplished this he says that God did it by using their ignorance against them.

Again, the following verse is one among others:

17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.

Notice the words "But this is how God fulfilled...." How did he fulfill it? By using their ignorace against them.

As Matheson explains:

“The idea is that their effort of opposition to the divine will proved to be a stroke of alliance with it...They met together in a council of war against Christ; unconsciously to themselves they signed a treaty for the promotion of Christ's glory...Our God does not need to beat down the storms that rise against Him; he rides upon them; he works through them."

This is corroborated by Acts 2:27

"This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God."

I rest my case.

So the conclusion is that in one sense God willed the death of Christ. It is not the case that he merely foreknew and used the sinful actions of men. It is the case that he willed them (based on these Scriptures).

Of course God willed the death of Christ. "IF it be thy will, take this cup from me..."

God wanted Christ to die. How that was accomplished is another matter.

So my argument is that some distinction needs to be made between what God willed men to do to Christ in crucifying him, and what he willed men not to do by holding them accountable for their actions.

I would make the same comment. I, on the other hand, can make the distinction without resorting to mystery..

geoff

April 10th 2003, 06:42 PM

Sheepdog,

This is to what I am referring:
will1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wl)
n.

1.
1. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
2. The act of exercising the will.

(this dictionary definition is only partially beneficially, as we are discussing a more philosophical understanding of "will")

Sheepdog

April 10th 2003, 06:58 PM

Today @ 04:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61965#post61965)
Gavin:

Sheepdog,

Showing that God's moral will is revealed in Scripture does not prove that there is such thing as God's sovereign will.

hmm? did you mean "isn't"?

if so, i would argue there is no reason to make a distinction. God's will that happens to cover morals is also sovereign. lacking Scripture to support the "two will" idea, i simply reject it outright.

Sheepdog

April 10th 2003, 07:03 PM

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62199#post62199)
geoff:

Sheepdog,

This is to what I am referring:
will1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wl)
n.

1.
1. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
2. The act of exercising the will.

(this dictionary definition is only partially beneficially, as we are discussing a more philosophical understanding of "will")

hmm. ok, i originally checked Webster, which is a little different. however, even with a philosophical definition that suggests action is accompanied to will, it is not necessarily so. i can will to jump over the moon, but that doesn't mean i'll actually do it. i will to play video games now, but i am here responding to you. kind of understand my point?

geoff

April 10th 2003, 08:40 PM

Sheep,

For sure.. which is why I qualified my statement with "omnipotent". If I was ominpotent, I "could" jump over the moon.

What you mean to "will to play video games" is "desire to play video games" - if you willed to play videogames, and it was within your control to do so, you would.

Were you omnipotent, there would be nothing that could prevent you from actioning your will.

Gavin

April 11th 2003, 02:42 AM

Sheepdog,

hmm? did you mean "isn't"?

if so, i would argue there is no reason to make a distinction. God's will that happens to cover morals is also sovereign. lacking Scripture to support the "two will" idea, i simply reject it outright.

Yes, I meant "isn't", sorry.

And thats what this thread is about - whether or not there is evidence for the sovereign will of God. I am pulling out the whole arsenal, but so far we have really only got to two verses. I Samuel 2:25, and Acts 3-4. Feel free to chime in as you want. :smile:

Gavin

April 11th 2003, 02:58 AM

Jake,

Your point is that it's his will because it's his will. Therefore, you call it mysterious.

. . .

They don't conflict, and there is no reson to resort to "mystery."

:argh:

Okay, lets try this: your position is that there are eleven sacred cows leaping over the moon this instant.

There now do you understand what it is like to have your position continually misrepresented despite your claims to the contary?

I am NOT SAYING that it is his will because his will and therefore it is mysterious. And I am NOT SAYING that they conflict and we must resort to "mystery". ALL I am saying is this:

So my argument is that some distinction needs to be made between what God willed men to do to Christ in crucifying him, and what he willed men not to do by holding them accountable for their actions.

There is no conflict, no capriciousness, and no mystery here (expect in the sense that we may not always understand what God's sovereign will is - but he still has a REASON for doing it). Got it?

Now for your position:

The verses say that Christ was "delivered" to sinful man by his plan and foreknowledge. Your attempt to make the verses mean that God caused them to sin is unconvincing. The fact is that every time Luke records how God accomplished this he says that God did it by using their ignorance against them.

Again, the following verse is one among others:

17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.

Notice the words "But this is how God fulfilled...." How did he fulfill it? By using their ignorace against them.

As Matheson explains:

“The idea is that their effort of opposition to the divine will proved to be a stroke of alliance with it...They met together in a council of war against Christ; unconsciously to themselves they signed a treaty for the promotion of Christ's glory...Our God does not need to beat down the storms that rise against Him; he rides upon them; he works through them."

I agree that God used their ignorance against them, and that he worked their sinful acts in accordance with his foreknowledge and plan. Fine.

But this is not enough to account for the specific wording of the verse.

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

You seem to want to say that it was God's will that Christ die, but it was not his will that men sin in crucifying him. But this passage says that God "predestined" and "willed" that all the men who crucified Christ would do what they did against Jesus. So in other words, God willed that these men sin heinously. The wording of the text is important and clear.

Agree to this so far?

geoff

April 11th 2003, 03:07 AM

Gavin:

And thats what this thread is about - whether or not there is evidence for the sovereign will of God.

I thought this was about 2 wills in GOd. I believe there is only one sovereign (because He is King/Creator) will of GOd. I dont believe there is one sovereign and one non sovereign will.

Gavin

April 11th 2003, 03:11 AM

Geoff,

I thought this was about 2 wills in GOd.

Right, but pretty much everyone accepts God's moral will. So it usually comes down to the other one.

geoff

April 11th 2003, 03:38 AM

The King has a moral will and its not sovereign? In fact, how can he have any will that is not sovereign.. he IS sovereign...

Gavin

April 11th 2003, 03:52 AM

God's moral will is not sovereign in the sense that he does not enforce it. It is possible for people to be immoral and thus go against God's moral will.

geoff

April 11th 2003, 04:04 AM

If He doesnt enforce it, it isnt will is it? If he isnt "acting" on it, He is not "willing" it.

Besides that, sovereign doesnt mean enforcing it, sovereign is a "position". God's sovereign will is sovereign because God is the sovereign, the King. Everything God wills is sovereign because the Sovereign wills it.

Gavin

April 11th 2003, 01:34 PM

Geoff,

on your first point, yes it is God's will even though he does not enforce it. Mabye not the way you define will, but in SOME sense, for the Bible clearly speaks of God's will that all be saved, but not all are saved, etc.

second, that is simply the way sovereign is being employed in this instance.

Gavin

Arminian

April 11th 2003, 07:52 PM

Gavin,

Okay, lets try this: your position is that there are eleven sacred cows leaping over the moon this instant.

Hmmmm....It's not what I think, but given your previous understanding I can't say for sure if you're getting warmer or colder.

There is no conflict, no capriciousness, and no mystery here (expect in the sense that we may not always understand what God's sovereign will is - but he still has a REASON for doing it). Got it?

One more time......I don't need to resort to any explanation for the verses that involves a mysterious will. God has a reason for doing it, but calling it a "reason," (and you say "except") doesn't make it less mysterious on your part. I know the reason, as you can see if you read my posts, but you don't.

I said:

The verses say that Christ was "delivered" to sinful man by his plan and foreknowledge. Your attempt to make the verses mean that God caused them to sin is unconvincing. The fact is that every time Luke records how God accomplished this he says that God did it by using their ignorance against them.

Again, the following verse is one among others:

17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.

Notice the words "But this is how God fulfilled...." How did he fulfill it? By using their ignorace against them.

As Matheson explains:

“The idea is that their effort of opposition to the divine will proved to be a stroke of alliance with it...They met together in a council of war against Christ; unconsciously to themselves they signed a treaty for the promotion of Christ's glory...Our God does not need to beat down the storms that rise against Him; he rides upon them; he works through them.

You responded:

I agree that God used their ignorance against them, and that he worked their sinful acts in accordance with his foreknowledge and plan. Fine.

Great. Their ignorace is H O W he fulfilled his plan. Read the exact words of the verse I quoted.

But this is not enough to account for the specific wording of the verse.

Sure it is, but you go on to quote a verse other than the one you were talking about:

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

You seem to want to say that it was God's will that Christ die, but it was not his will that men sin in crucifying him. But this passage says that God "predestined" and "willed" that all the men who crucified Christ would do what they did against Jesus. So in other words, God willed that these men sin heinously. The wording of the text is important and clear.

I said (sigh...) that it was God's will that Christ die at the hands of those wicked men. God didn't have to make them want to kill Christ, so it wasn't his will that they be wicked killers. Rather, God, knowing that they would be wicked killers, and also knowing exactly what they would do, planned to have Christ killed by them. Therefore, all that happened to Christ was predestined to happen, just as God had planned, using all the descriptions from all the verses I quoted.

How did God accomplish this? By using their ignorance against them.

Agree to this so far?

No.