Did God Create Adam....

[seer]

To

A. Sin.

B. Not Sin.


What was God's "will" on this matter. His REAL will, not His expressed will which some here suggest is not really what God intends... :huh:

[doogieduff]

God didn't create Adam for either. God created Adam to have someone who would reciprocate His love back to Him. A genuine love, not a calvinistic forced love. Did He know Adam could sin? You bet. When He gave Adam the free will to do good, that also gave him the free will to do bad. Did He think Adam would probably sin? I'd say yes again. Why? Well, lucifer was in a perfect state and environment, and was so close to God, and sin still overpowered him. So my guess is that He expected Adam to do the same. Did He want him to sin? Of course not, but in God's eyes, with His experience with lucifer, He knew better than to not expect it.

[doogieduff]

BTW on the whole will thing, I don't thing it will make sense without the Open View. On the calvinistic side of things, it's completely stupid for God to desire (thelema will) all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4) Why? Because according to calvinism, God has only elected so many to be saved, and God Himslef gives us the ability to believe. So why would a God desire all men to be saved KNOWING He Himself won't elect many, and also, won't give some the ability to believe?! It's completely foolish. On the Arminian side of things, it's also foolish. Why would a God decieve Himself into thinking He desires all to be saved, when He already foreknows who will be saved and who won't?

[seer]

On the Arminian side of things, it's also foolish. Why would a God decieve Himself into thinking He desires all to be saved, when He already foreknows who will be saved and who won't?

That does not follow. I believe that God still wants all men to be saved even though He has seen millions already dead reject His overtures.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81193#post81193)
seer:



That does not follow. I believe that God still wants all men to be saved even though He has seen millions already dead reject His overtures.

Actually it does follow.
So you're going to say that God foreknows that the Lakers won't win this year's NBA title, yet He still is going to desire that they do win it? And even more, He's going to tell everyone that He hopes that they win? This follows in His inspired biblical words. He has put in the Bible for all to see for all time that He desires something He knows for sure won't happen? I don't think so. Plus, when did God's desire that all men would be saved occur? I say from the foundation of the world. Why wouldn't it be? If this is the case, then it goes to show that all men could have been saved, had all men responded to God's method of salvation. If you could peek into the future right now, and see that the Laker's lose in the second round, you will not root for them, much less preach to everyone that you hope they win. It's just foolish.

[seer]

I say from the foundation of the world. Why wouldn't it be? If this is the case, then it goes to show that all men could have been saved, had all men responded to God's method of salvation. If you could peek into the future right now, and see that the Laker's lose in the second round, you will not root for them, much less preach to everyone that you hope they win. It's just foolish.

So when God looks back on all the lost He now has no wish that they could have been saved?

[Gavin]

Seer,

To

A. Sin.

B. Not Sin.


What was God's "will" on this matter. His REAL will, not His expressed will which some here suggest is not really what God intends...

You assume God did not will both A and B in different senses.

[seer]

You assume God did not will both A and B in different senses.

Yes,I assume that God is not doubleminded. Call me silly....

[Kenny]

Today @ 12:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81287#post81287)
seer:

You assume God did not will both A and B in different senses.

Yes,I assume that God is not doubleminded. Call me silly....

God would only be double minded if the two senses were identical. They are not.

[seer]

God would only be double minded if the two senses were identical. They are not.

That does not follow. The fact is you are suggesting that God created Adm to both sin and not sin. That when looking at Adam's creation God had conflicting desires on how to create him. Even if one desire was dominate, it was still in conflict with the lesser desire.

[mustbenothing]

(doogieduff) God didn't create Adam for either. God created Adam to have someone who would reciprocate His love back to Him. A genuine love, not a calvinistic forced love.

(Me) Strong-arm, begs-the-question, prejudicial language; please stop posting if you're just going to insult people.



(doogieduff) BTW on the whole will thing, I don't thing it will make sense without the Open View. On the calvinistic side of things, it's completely stupid for God to desire (thelema will) all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4) Why? Because according to calvinism, God has only elected so many to be saved, and God Himslef gives us the ability to believe. So why would a God desire all men to be saved KNOWING He Himself won't elect many, and also, won't give some the ability to believe?! It's completely foolish.

(Me) Paul's answer:

Romans 9:23
in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory



(seer) That does not follow. The fact is you are suggesting that God created Adm to both sin and not sin. That when looking at Adam's creation God had conflicting desires on how to create him. Even if one desire was dominate, it was still in conflict with the lesser desire.

(Me) Kenny refers to two different kinds of wills: decretive and preceptive. God's secret decrees (will) are different from God's revealed precepts (will).

[seer]

(seer) That does not follow. The fact is you are suggesting that God created Adm to both sin and not sin. That when looking at Adam's creation God had conflicting desires on how to create him. Even if one desire was dominate, it was still in conflict with the lesser desire.

(Me) Kenny refers to two different kinds of wills: decretive and preceptive. God's secret decrees (will) are different from God's revealed precepts (will).

I know EXACTLY what you and Kenny mean. I was after all a Calvinist for a number of years. Heck I just reread Pink's book the Sovereignty of God last week. But that still does not solve the problem: that your theory makes God doubleminded - one part of God wanted Adam to sin,and the other part did not.

This is why none of you have answered this very simple question: Did God create Adam to sin,or not to sin?

Of course your theory also makes God untrustworthy. God says that He wants all men to be saved, but in the end,that is not true.

[Kenny]

Seer,

As an Arminian who believes in exhaustive divine foreknowledge (which I take it that you are from other posts you have made), you have the same problem here that the Calvinist does. Let me ask you, do you believe that God desired to create a world full of evil (or at least, one that would become as such)? Since God did in fact create such a world with full knowledge that it would turn out in the manner it has, then in some sense it must be that God did desire to do so. Yet, I'm sure that you would affirm that there is another sense in which God did not desire to do so. I'm sure that you would affirm that God did so because He valued a world in which there was genuine freedom above a world in which there is no evil. Thus, God created a world full of evil (or at least one that would become as such) because, even though evil in and of itself is not something God finds desirable, a world full of evil winds up being better than the alternatives because of higher order moral considerations. This last sentence is something which I as a Calvinist would also affirm, though I see the higher moral considerations as differing from what you would see them as.

Even the open theist has a similar problem here (though it is, admittedly, mitigated). The open theist would likely want to affirm, all else being equal, that God wills for evil not to have the opportunity to grow and flourish. Yet, God created a world full of potentialities for evil to grow and flourish. Why?, because presumably God desired a world with genuine freedom, relationally, and the risks that go with these things over and above a dull world in which evil never has the opportunity to grow or flourish.

So the Arminian and the Calvinist both must logically affirm that God has more than one will concerning things. Though God may hate certain things when looked upon as they are in themselves, God may desire them for the sake of higher moral purposes. There is nothing fundamentally deceptive about this, as both types of willing reflect genuine aspects of God's character and the intents of God's heart. I believe that looked upon in and of itself, Adam's rebellion was an affront to God's holy character, all else being equal, God desired that it not occur. Looked upon in the larger context of God's purposes, God willed to permit Adam's rebellion for higher moral reasons -- so that His plan of redemption and the demonstration of His character therein could be carried out.

Finally, I would like to commend this article (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html) to you, as it is the best treatment of this issue of which I am aware. I think John Piper shows soundly that in order to even read Scripture coherently, one must hold to some sort of doctrine of two wills.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Gavin]

Seer,

(seer) That does not follow. The fact is you are suggesting that God created Adm to both sin and not sin. That when looking at Adam's creation God had conflicting desires on how to create him. Even if one desire was dominate, it was still in conflict with the lesser desire.

(Me) Kenny refers to two different kinds of wills: decretive and preceptive. God's secret decrees (will) are different from God's revealed precepts (will).

I know EXACTLY what you and Kenny mean. I was after all a Calvinist for a number of years. Heck I just reread Pink's book the Sovereignty of God last week. But that still does not solve the problem: that your theory makes God doubleminded - one part of God wanted Adam to sin,and the other part did not.

This is why none of you have answered this very simple question: Did God create Adam to sin,or not to sin?

Of course your theory also makes God untrustworthy. God says that He wants all men to be saved, but in the end,that is not true.

No, no, no, you are completely missing the point. The two wills theory does not make God double-minded because each of the two wills is operating on entirely different levels from one another and do not contradict each other. So God is not untrustworthy because he sincerely would like all men to come to repentance. But at another level, it is equally clear from Scripture that God also specifically wills different things than the salvation of all. See my thread on the subject.

And as Kenny pointed out, traditional Arminians run into similar difficulties, because God knew Adam would sin and still chose to create him.

[seer]

Kenny,again that does not follow.

To the Arminian God created Adam not to sin,He did not want sin in the universe. But He also created Adam with free will. So no in my model God was not doubleminded.

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82421#post82421)
seer:

Kenny, again that does not follow.

To the Arminian God created Adam not to sin, He did not want sin in the universe. But He also created Adam with free will. So no in my model God was not doubleminded.

I also believe that God created Adam with free will. Contrary to popular belief, one can be a Calvinist and affirm that there are meaningful senses in which people can be said to have free will. However, this does not rescue you from your dilemma. On classical Arminianism, God willed to bring about a world in which he knew Adam would sin. God could have prevented (say, by refraining from creating) this state of affairs, but God willfully chose to allow this state of affairs to come about. So you still have it that God willed to permit Adam to sin for higher moral purposes.

Also, I think you have an additional dilemma. Why didn’t God choose to create another being, instead of Adam, whom He knew would freely choose to not sin? If it’s just having beings with free will that God cares about and God does not desire in any sense that evil should come about, why didn’t He have His cake and eat it too? Perhaps you could argue something along the lines of Plantinga’s suggestion that all possible beings God could have created in Adam’s position suffered from transworld depravity and so it was logically impossible for God to do this. But while, perhaps conceivable, this never seemed very plausible to me.

God Bless,
Kenny

[seer]

...On classical Arminianism, God willed to bring about a world in which he knew Adam would sin. God could have prevented (say, by refraining from creating) this state of affairs, but God willfully chose to allow this state of affairs to come about. So you still have it that God willed to permit Adam to sin for higher moral purposes.

Willed and allowed are two different words. Yes obviously God thought it worth the trouble to have the love of free creatures. So yes God created knowing the outcome: sin - that does not mean He wanted sin,intended sin,or willed sin. It just happens to be the byproduct.

...Perhaps you could argue something along the lines of Plantinga’s suggestion that all possible beings God could have created in Adam’s position suffered from transworld depravity and so it was logically impossible for God to do this. But while, perhaps conceivable, this never seemed very plausible to me.

It seems to me that creating a morally fee being that has no possibility of going wrong is a logical contradiction.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 06:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82562#post82562)
seer:

...On classical Arminianism, God willed to bring about a world in which he knew Adam would sin. God could have prevented (say, by refraining from creating) this state of affairs, but God willfully chose to allow this state of affairs to come about. So you still have it that God willed to permit Adam to sin for higher moral purposes.



I'm not sure if you believe this, but do you see the problem with this logic? If God knew Adam would sin, God couldn't have prevented him from sinning, because that would be a change in the future that God knew, and therefore it would bring about something that God didn't foreknow from before the creation of the world. It just doesn't work...According to Arminianism, and Calvinism, God knows with 100% certainty the exact future as it will happen. If God changes this future at all, that means He would have been wrong in the first place about what would have happened. God either knew Adam would sin, or knew He would have prevented Adam from sinning, but He could not have known both, because only one officially happened.

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82562#post82562)
seer: Willed and allowed are two different words. Yes obviously God thought it worth the trouble to have the love of free creatures. So yes God created knowing the outcome: sin - that does not mean He wanted sin,intended sin,or willed sin. It just happens to be the byproduct.

Okay, I can go along with such a distinction, but you still have it that God willed to permit the outcome of sin in order to obtain higher moral goods. In fact, as a Calvinist, that is what I believe as well. God did not want sin or intend sin or will sin as any sort of end in itself, but He permitted the outcome of sin in order to obtain higher moral goods. Sin just happens to be a byproduct in a universe where such goods are obtained.

It seems to me that creating a morally fee being that has no possibility of going wrong is a logical contradiction.

I disagree, but I’ll concede that point for a moment for the sake of argument. I didn’t ask you why God didn’t create a morally free being with no possibility of going wrong. I asked you why God didn’t create a morally free being that He knew wouldn’t go wrong. As a classical Arminian, you must see the distinction here. Surely, in some sense, Adam had the capacity to do what was right even though God knew he would choose to do wrong. Why didn’t God create a being whom He knew would do right even though that being had the capacity to do what was wrong?

In Christ,
Kenny

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82943#post82943)
doogieduff: I'm not sure if you believe this, but do you see the problem with this logic? If God knew Adam would sin, God couldn't have prevented him from sinning, because that would be a change in the future that God knew, and therefore it would bring about something that God didn't foreknow from before the creation of the world. It just doesn't work...According to Arminianism, and Calvinism, God knows with 100% certainty the exact future as it will happen. If God changes this future at all, that means He would have been wrong in the first place about what would have happened. God either knew Adam would sin, or knew He would have prevented Adam from sinning, but He could not have known both, because only one officially happened.

No, this is the view of simple divine foreknowledge and this view is deeply problematic. Carry it out to its logical conclusion and it means that God has no choices whatsoever about how to create the world or how to interact with it. On the view which you have described, God simply knows, independently of His will, what will happen and He is powerless to change it. Even the cross would not have been something which resulted from God’s will, but merely something God was locked into doing because He knew it was going to happen. In the end, this view completely destroys God’s freedom.

As the advocates of middle knowledge have correctly pointed out, there must be logical priorities within God’s knowledge. God’s free knowledge (which is based on what He has decided He will do) must be logically preceded by and based upon His natural knowledge (His knowledge of all possibilities) and perhaps (if you believe it exists in such a way that makes it distinct form His natural knowledge – though I do not) His middle knowledge (which is His knowledge, not only of possibilities, but of what would actually happen if certain possibilities were realized).

Once we recognize such priorities in God’s knowledge, however, then there is no problem with the idea that God could have prevented certain outcomes from coming about, since God’s knowledge of what possibilities would be realized under various circumstances logically precedes God’s will to bring about any of those circumstances.

God Bless,
Kenny

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83071#post83071)
Kenny:



No, this is the view of simple divine foreknowledge and this view is deeply problematic. Carry it out to its logical conclusion and it means that God has no choices whatsoever about how to create the world or how to interact with it. On the view which you have described, God simply knows, independently of His will, what will happen and He is powerless to change it. Even the cross would not have been something which resulted from God’s will, but merely something God was locked into doing because He knew it was going to happen. In the end, this view completely destroys God’s freedom.

As the advocates of middle knowledge have correctly pointed out, there must be logical priorities within God’s knowledge. God’s free knowledge (which is based on what He has decided He will do) must be logically preceded by and based upon His natural knowledge (His knowledge of all possibilities) and perhaps (if you believe it exists in such a way that makes it distinct form His natural knowledge – though I do not) His middle knowledge (which is His knowledge, not only of possibilities, but of what would actually happen if certain possibilities were realized).

Once we recognize such priorities in God’s knowledge, however, then there is no problem with the idea that God could have prevented certain outcomes from coming about, since God’s knowledge of what possibilities would be realized under various circumstances logically precedes God’s will to bring about any of those circumstances.

God Bless,
Kenny

I didn't say God couldn't know possibilities, because He does. I said He can only know one FOR SURE future. If the future changes from what He foreknew, then He was wrong, and did not know the future at all. So God can't change His mind about what He foreknew, then that would make Him wrong on His previous foreknowledge. Let em ask you this...What good what it do for God to know or ven waste His time thinking about possibilities if He knows the future exhaustively? If what He foreknew from the foundation of the world ever changes, He was wrong at the time of the foundation of the world, but this can't be right?

[seer]

Why didn’t God create a being whom He knew would do right even though that being had the capacity to do what was wrong?

I think it is simple. God was personally invested in Adam the man. This I believe goes beyond time and understanding. When did God have His first thought about creating a man? And if that first thought ever existed was it the man named Adam? Or was Adam God's eternal thought? Either way God was going to invest in the man Adam no matter the consequences. One wonders if it could have been any different...

[Kenny]

I didn't say God couldn't know possibilities, because He does. I said He can only know one FOR SURE future.

All of God’s knowledge is “for sure,” whether it be of possibilities, inevitabilities, or what would have been if things had been different.

If the future changes from what He foreknew, then He was wrong, and did not know the future at all. So God can't change His mind about what He foreknew, then that would make Him wrong on His previous foreknowledge.

The question is not about whether or not God can change His mind about what He foreknows, the question is whether or not God’s foreknowledge is logically dependent on what God has willed to do and logically preceded by God’s knowledge of all possibilities of what would, in fact, happen if certain circumstances were realized. If all of God’s foreknowledge is independent of God’s will, then God has no free will but rather is locked in to doing what He knows, independently of His will, that He will do. God becomes the slave of His own knowledge.

Let em ask you this...What good what it do for God to know or ven waste His time thinking about possibilities if He knows the future exhaustively?

God doesn’t “waste His time thinking about possibilities.” That knowledge is naturally and immediately present to God’s mind logically prior to any decisions God has made concerning which possibilities to actualize. God’s will to actualize certain possibilities is based on His knowledge of what the range of possibilities are. God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of what will happen is, in turn, based upon God’s knowledge of which possibilities He has chosen to actualize. So God’s will is not hampered by God’s foreknowledge, but rather, God’s foreknowledge is based on what God has willed. But, these are all logical priorities – there are no temporal priorities involved. All of God’s knowledge comes into being simultaneously.

If what He foreknew from the foundation of the world ever changes, He was wrong at the time of the foundation of the world, but this can't be right?

No, God can’t be wrong about what He foreknows because God doesn’t change His mind. Perfect wisdom does not second guess itself. But God’s foreknowledge is based on what God has willed to do based on His knowledge of what was possible for Him to do, so God isn’t locked into certain courses of action which are contrary to His will simply because He foreknew that He would do them.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83461#post83461)
seer: I think it is simple. God was personally invested in Adam the man. This I believe goes beyond time and understanding. When did God have His first thought about creating a man? And if that first thought ever existed was it the man named Adam? Or was Adam God's eternal thought? Either way God was going to invest in the man Adam no matter the consequences. One wonders if it could have been any different...

Okay Seer, that’s fair enough. But my point about the classical Arminian also needing to speak of two wills still stands. Also, I see a very interesting parallel here between your answer to the question of why God chose to create Adam rather than some other possible being and your challenge to Calvinist theology concerning whether or not God’s choices are arbitrary. It seems that the same philosophical problems you are raising for Calvinism start coming back to haunt you if one presses things.

God Bless,
Kenny

[seer]

...It seems that the same philosophical problems you are raising for Calvinism start coming back to haunt you if one presses things.

No,Calvinism still makes God's choices arbitrary. But I have no problem jumping into the deterministic model - see my new thread on the subject.

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84485#post84485)
seer: No,Calvinism still makes God's choices arbitrary. But I have no problem jumping into the deterministic model - see my new thread on the subject.

How do your arguments that, on Calvinism, God's choices in election must be arbitrary, not apply with equal force to your view that God chose Adam over other possible persons to create because of some sort of mysterious personal interest? Why couldn't the same sort of answer be applied to God's choices in election?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84594#post84594)
Kenny:



How do your arguments that, on Calvinism, God's choices in election must be arbitrary, not apply with equal force to your view that God chose Adam over other possible persons to create because of some sort of mysterious personal interest? Why couldn't the same sort of answer be applied to God's choices in election?

I do not see your point, maybe you could elaborate?

:hrm: :huh:
Blake

[seer]

How do your arguments that, on Calvinism, God's choices in election must be arbitrary, not apply with equal force to your view that God chose Adam over other possible persons to create because of some sort of mysterious personal interest?

Like I said, there can be a number of reasons. Perhaps Adam and his offspring were the best possible choice to maximize the number of saved to the number of lost: when dealing with free creatures. Perhaps that was God's overriding personal interest in Adam.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explaination of how God would choose one identical lump over the other.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84694#post84694)
seer:



Like I said, there can be a number of reasons. Perhaps Adam and his offspring were the best possible choice to maximize the number of saved to the number of lost: when dealing with free creatures. Perhaps that was God's overriding personal interest in Adam.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explaination of how God would choose one identical lump over the other.


If Universalism is so appealing to you, how would you answer this: If God is going to save all people then why would he even create a "Hell" ? Also if He perfectly holy doesn't that demand a perfect punishment? Or in other words Infinite Holiness demands Infinite destruction not just a short stint as the article you provided seems to appeal to.

Blake

[seer]

If Universalism is so appealing to you, how would you answer this: If God is going to save all people then why would he even create a "Hell" ? Also if He perfectly holy doesn't that demand a perfect punishment? Or in other words Infinite Holiness demands infinite destruction not just a short stint as the article you provided seems to appeal to.

1. I believe any man with a heart should find the possibility of Christ saving all, appealing. I'am just not sure if it is true.

2. The deterministic universalists have a problem explaining the lake of fire. Free will universalists,like the early church fathers, don't. The lake of fire is necessary to help bring them to repentance.

http://tomtalbott.freeyellow.com/index.html

3. And why would Infinite Holiness demand infinite destruction? Why not say that infinite mercy demands infinite reconciliation? Besides the Holiness of God may in fact lead to mercy as Hosea 11:9 suggests.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84978#post84978)
seer:



1. I believe any man with a heart should find the possibility of Christ saving all, appealing. I'am just not sure if it is true.

2. The deterministic universalists have a problem explaining the lake of fire. Free will universalists,like the early church fathers, don't. The lake of fire is necessary to help bring them to repentance.

http://tomtalbott.freeyellow.com/index.html

3. And why would Infinite Holiness demand infinite destruction? Why not say that infinite mercy demands infinite reconciliation? Besides the Holiness of God may in fact lead to mercy as Hosea 11:9 suggests.

The early Church fathers where Universalist? :hrm:

Blake

[Kenny]

Today @ 02:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84694#post84694)
seer: Like I said, there can be a number of reasons. Perhaps Adam and his offspring were the best possible choice to maximize the number of saved to the number of lost: when dealing with free creatures. Perhaps that was God's overriding personal interest in Adam.

But seer, those reasons are very similar to the ones I suggested as possibilities for God’s reasons for His choices in election on this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3419). On the one hand, I suggested that there might be some measure of utilitarian considerations involved (as you have) and, on the other hand, I suggested that it may be simply wrapped up in the overarching mystery of God’s free love (which I think pretty much equates to “overriding personal interest”). I don’t see how your answers here fare any better or worse than mine.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84606#post84606)
Blake Reas: I do not see your point, maybe you could elaborate?

Seer has charged elsewhere (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3419) that Calvinism makes God’s choices in election – God’s choosing one person over another -- out to be arbitrary. I see a parallel problem in Seer’s view here, however, because Seer does not have a readily available explanation for why God chose to create Adam (whom He knew would fall) over and above some other possible person (say one He knew would not fall). If Seer attributes this choice to some sort of mysterious personal interest in Adam on the part of God, then the Calvinist can take a similar route with respect to God’s choices in election. If Seer chalks it up to utilitarian considerations, then as I pointed out on the above link, the Calvinist has similar options.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

...The early Church fathers where Universalist?

It was a wide spread belief in the early church. Many of the more noted Church doctors held this view:

http://hellbusters.8m.com/updcontents.html


The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) by Schaff-Herzog volume 12, on page 96:

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

[seer]

Except in my model Kenny God's love extends to all mankind. And His choice of Adam maximizes the number of saved. There is no arbitrary reason for choosing one man over the other. The reason is love - love for all...

[theist]

"unconditional elect" meaning, like Eph 2:8-10 states- it's NOT about you but about God and his mercy! amen. Arminians need to stop making God obligated to save man.

scenario: I believe in you God! Ha! I know I'm a sinner- now save me! Give me rebirth! I need you!

Arminians says in his head, "God chose me?! ha! God I choose you!"

As far as universalism goes, most mistranslate certain passages. As far as hell, I don't think it's a "borrowed" Idea. Parable or not, Jesus preached it! We preach it the same way he did!

in HIS grip,

rustyb
:dufus:

[seer]

...Arminians need to stop making God obligated to save man.

That is just silly. God is not obligated to save all men,it is God's desire to save all men:

1 Timothy 2:4-6

"God will have ALL MEN to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time."

[theist]

seer,

The context will not all you to impy every single person in 1Timothy 2:4. The context is clearly all [types of] men. Notice from the beginng the discussion is about men in authority.

"All men" as in these verses:
Rev. 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and [all] tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches [were] in their hands;
Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood [men] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Simply, all kinds and types of men.

in HIS grip,

rustyb
:dufus:

[theist]

When I say obligated; I say that because man "figured" out his natural state and his need for a saviour, then God saves him. Therefore, God is dependant on man to save folks. Instead, we all should know thaty God does the first loving and the fisrt choosing!

in HIS grip,

rustyb
:dufus:

[Arminian]

theist,

The context will not all you to impy every single person in 1Timothy 2:4. The context is clearly all [types of] men. Notice from the beginng the discussion is about men in authority.

It's highly unlikely that Paul would write that we sould pray that we have peace with all types of men -- meaning sample of the population so as to represent categories within it, but no one in particular. Rather, it is because this is exteneded to every person, we should apply it to men in authority (not just some of them) because they, above all, are in a position to affect our peace.

It is through peace that we will be able to reach all men, who, of course, our Savior desires to save.

[seer]

Simply, all kinds and types of men.

Do you really mean ALL types and kinds theist? Are not the non-elect a type and kind? Or are you now going to say SOME types or kinds? And of course Paul made sure that we knew that the non-elect were included in "all men" by using it in such a manner later in the letter that it could not be mistaken:

1 Timothy 4:10

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

Over the center feild fence - homerun!!!!!:cheers:

[theist]

seer,

Before I answer 1Timothy 4:10, I ask if you're a universalist?
It'll help me to know what angle to approach it. Thanks in advance.

I had written an email to a genteleman who was espoused to universalism and used 1Timothy 2:4 with another verse to propel his universalist theology.

"all children left the class" doesn't mean all children in the world, now does it ;) on with the email.

*edited*
Now, 1Timothy 2:4, you say reads to the effect: "God desires every single man to be saved" and then enforce it with Isaiah 46:10 in that "God's purpose will stand", thus you conclude that because God's will is immutable and non-contingent, which it is, that all men(without distinction) will be saved. This ofcourse
is incorrect and can easily be seen throughout the entire Bible.

1. Context:
1 Tim. 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties [and] prayers, petitions [and] thanksgivings, be made
on behalf of all men, (NASB)
1 Tim. 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (NASB)
Notice the subject of the first of the chapter, men in authority. Verse 1, "..I urge that entreaties [and] prayers, petitions [and] thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,.." Notice the "all men" at the end of the first verse? Does it mean every single man in existence? not exactly, look at the next verse to learn the scope of the "all men" usage: "for kings and all who are in authority," So, what's the full means? All men, rendered in that it points to "kings and all who are in authority" God asks that you pray for everyone, without bias towards their race, ethnicity, occupation,
nationality, etc. Example:

1 Cor. 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews
and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of
God. (NASB)
Should that be read, surely, God calls all men in that
there are no other deifnitions of "all men" outside of
"both Jews and Greeks"?

2. The Greek
paV(pas), the greek word translated "all" has many usages, including:
(1) qualified universality (i.e. all within a
prescribed class),
(2) universality of kinds (i.e. some individuals of
every kind, but not necessarily every individual of
every kind),
(3) a multiplicity of kinds (i.e. some individuals of
many kinds, but not necessarily every possible
kindrepresented),
(4) many(a multiplicity of individuals, perhaps all of
the same kind, without any thought of universality at
all).

Instances can be seen in Matthew 4:23; Matthew 23:27;
Acts 2:5; Acts 7:22; Acts 10:11-14; Acts 13:10; Romans
7:8; and 1 Timothy 6:10.

Mitch Cervinka states:
"However, once we recognize that the verse could just
as validly be translated: "[God] desires all kinds
ofmen to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth," we find that we are not forced to the idea
that God desires the salvation of all men without
exception._And, if we are not forced to a
universalistic interpretation of the verse, then we
are not forced to try to explain how God can have two
different wills respecting the salvationof men—that He
simultaneously wants all mento be saved, and also
wants His elect onlyto be saved."

3. Scriptural consistency
"One consideration, of course, is its consistency with other clear passages of Scripture (e.g. Mark 13:20; Romans 9:15, 18; Romans 11:4, 7; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5)._ If Scripture elsewhere teaches that God has willed the salvation of His elect only, then that consideration alone would seem to disqualify the "all men without exception" interpretation._ However, there will always be those who, like Piper, would rather suggest that
God has two contradictory purposes, and then attempt to settle the matter by means of elaborate explanations, so we must not suppose that we can rely upon the argument of consistency alone. "

4. Other testimony
Should we rely solely on your commentary concerning this verse? Infact, you propel your own theology and misunderstanding of the verse. We read John Calvin's commentary:

"... Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and
hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally
to partake salvation. But the present discourse
relates to classes of men, and not to individual
persons; for his sole object is, to include in this
number princes and foreign nations..." - Calvin
*edited*

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[theist]

Arminian,

the same Arminian from www.theologyonline.com ?

in HIS grip

rustyb
:dufus:

[seer]

Again,Theist you balk. Clearly the "all men/all" in First Timothy 1+2 inculded the non-elect. So the classes within those are non-elect. Second, you still say ALL kinds and classes - are not the non-elect a kind or class? Then you jump to the two will theory - so which is it? But the fact is Paul clearly shows us that "all men" comprehends the non-elect in the very same letter 4:10.

Should we rely solely on your commentary concerning this verse?

Why on earth should I believe your commentaries?

How about Adam Clarke:

"Who will have all men to be saved] Because he wills the salvation of all men; therefore, he wills that all men should be prayed for. In the face of such a declaration, how can any Christian soul suppose that God ever unconditionally and eternally reprobated any man? Those who can believe so, one would suppose, can have little acquaintance either with the nature of GOD, or the bowels of Christ."

Wesley:

"For this - That we pray for all men. Do you ask, "Why are not more converted?" We do not pray enough. Is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour - Who has actually saved us that believe, and willeth all men to be saved. It is strange that any whom he has actually saved should doubt the universality of his grace! Who willeth seriously all men - Not a part only, much less the smallest part. To be saved - Eternally. This is treated of, 1 Timothy.And, in order thereto, to come - They are not compelled. To the knowledge of the truth - Which brings salvation. This is treated of, 1 Timothy 2:6,7. "

Spurgeon

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."


So tell me Theist,which argument are you going to use. The two will theory or the kinds and classes. We can go from there...

[theist]

seer,

The simplest sentences confuse you?

Do you espouse a theology inwhich God WANTS every single man to be saved and doesn't save each one? Instead, I say God wills all men to be saved, in that includes, much like rev 7:9 and 5:9:

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. (NIV)
Rev. 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (NIV)

truly, "with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation", all men; not every single man.

So we see, God saves all men in that there are no barriers which impede God's love. When Jesus said he will "draw all men" to him, did he mean every single man? Did Jesus draw the Aztecs? the Mayans? the Chineese? ofcourse not... but Jesus did what nobody at the time expected.... he drew the greek, the roman, the infidel; heck, he even drew some of the "righteous" pharisee and scribes.

We know, and scripture states that God chooses his church. How do you reconcile the fact that God wants to save others but doesn't? it's not very consistent. I pray for many people whom God has not chosen, Did God WANT to save them? obviously not- because salvation is solely in the hands of our LORD. You my friend are the one who balks, you are the one who is inconsistent.

in HIS grip

rustyb

[seer]

Again Theist, I have proved though 1 Timothy 2:1,2 and 4:10 that "all men" in the context of this letter includes the non-elect. That having been done YOU jump to other texts to try and destroy the clear meaning of the Timothy Texts. God drawing,enlightening,inner prompting of the law, are universal.
(John 1:7-9,12:32,Romans 2:14,15).

But God's grace is not irresisable.

[seer]

BTW Theist, you quoted:


Rev. 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

Then you said:

"Did Jesus draw the Aztecs? the Mayans? the Chineese?"

Of course He did,if not Revelation 7:9 is wrong: "from EVERY NATION, TRIBE, PEOPLE and LANGUAGE."

[theist]

seer,

no, i contest that "All men" in 1tim 2:4 is not the "non-elect" because common sense would tell you that what God wants, he wills? you agree? I have, or rather tried, to show that God's elect are not only Jews... When Jesus says he will draw all men to himself he means "all kinds"(not every single man). So Paul is saying, paraphrased, "Do not stop praying for kings or men in authority because God calls even these men to salvation" He is not saying, "God calls all men to him, yes, every single man!".... he's talking to jews(more so) and gentiles who are, more than likely, being persecuted by these same men! I don't understand why this is hard to grasp...

About the aztecz and the mayans, technically, Jesus didn't "draw" them in the sense when he was on the cross because they didn't come into existence till around 1160-ish(i think). Point is, Jesus doesn't draw every single man because some men die without hearing the Gospel. I imagine, though, he draws all kinds ;)

About our LORD's call?

Can't be taken or removed:
Romans 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Is for God's purpose (remove "free-will)
Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. (NASB)

Follows an order:
Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (NASB)
Therefore, those he predestines are called. Those he calls are justified. The only ones glorfied are called. What do you have? You have the elect/church as the only ones called.... Common sense would alot such, seeing as how those in Heaven are glorified, thus, we conclude that all that are called are also glorified.. Error could slip in an say "God calls all men", but the scripture will not allow such a contradiction because we know of ALL THOSE he calls, he justifies, and those he calls, he later glorifies- those same "all". If you would like to converse on this subject, I suggest you make a new thread. God bless you!


in HIS grip,

rustyb

[theist]

seer,

Rev. 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

My point was to say God calls "all men" in that, he not only calls and deals with the Jews. I do not, nor does scripture say, God calls "every single man".

Also, we would have to know the complete context of John's visions, not to mention it's a lyrics the angelic hosts are singing...... Is it literal or does it have a more symbolic meaning?

I would also point out that the Spirit of Jesus would not allow Paul to go and preach east to Mysia(sp?), instead, it pushed him west... (what was God's will in that? Did he wish to save those in the west more? not sure, i'll let you answer it)

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[seer]

no, i contest that "All men" in 1tim 2:4 is not the "non-elect" because common sense would tell you that what God wants, he wills? you agree?

Well no, not according to Spurgeon or most of the Calvinists on this board. If God wanted to say all kinds and classes He could have. But Theist, your argument is destroyed by Paul in the very same book.

1 Timothy 4:10


"And for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Believers are a sub class of "all men" who must here be the non-elect. But Theist you will not receive scripture because you have a "system" to defend.

Romans 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Interesting because this is speaking of the unbelieving Jews.

he's talking to jews(more so) and gentiles who are, more than likely, being persecuted by these same men! I don't understand why this is hard to grasp...

So many of these men that Paul calls us to pray for are non-elect - correct?

...Point is, Jesus doesn't draw every single man because some men die without hearing the Gospel. I imagine, though, he draws all kinds ;)

Really? I know of a lot of men that were saved without hearing the Gospel of Christ: Abraham, Moses,Isaiah,Abel,Enoch,Noah,the gentile harlot Rahab, a whole generation in Nineveh,etc,etc,etc....

[seer]

Rev. 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

...My point was to say God calls "all men" in that, he not only calls and deals with the Jews. I do not, nor does scripture say, God calls "every single man".

Again,it say EVERY nation, tribe, people and language - now I'am sure YOU have a point to make, but thankfully scripture disagrees with you.

I would also point out that the Spirit of Jesus would not allow Paul to go and preach east to Mysia(sp?), instead, it pushed him west... (what was God's will in that? Did he wish to save those in the west more? not sure, i'll let you answer it)

Yes at that moment God wanted Paul to go west, but the Gospel went east shortly after. That is were the apostle Thomas was killed.

[theist]

seer,

In 1 Timothy 4:10, does God save the "World" as he saved the believers? please explain your position on this verse.

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[theist]

seer,

Personally, you hold on to you preconcieved notions of free-will and man's will in salvation. You are the one defending a system.
You are the one asserting that God calls all men. Are you not? Do you think God calls "all men"? I assert God calls those he foreknew and predestines. He calls his "church". "the creation waits in eager expectation for the Sond of God to be revealed"...

Personally, I think it's funny how you skipped over the meat of the "calling"... (Romans)

you can't stick to one verse can you? Instead, you skip over to chapter 4.... You don't honestly believe Jesus is going to save every single person do you?

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[theist]

seer,

We are to pray for the non-elect, yes, bearing in mind we don't know who the elect are. God saves "all men", in that he saves not only the jew, but also the gentile. The context in 1Tim 2:4 implies such, shortly after "All men", it setups the scope of interpretation, "kings and men in authority". It's making a type of disctinction concerning "type" not "all in creation"

"For kings. - He expressly mentions kings and other magistrates because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians. All the magistrates who existed at that time were so many sworn enemies of Christ; and therefore this thought might occur to them, that they ought not to pray for those who devoted all their power and all their wealth to fight against the kingdom of Christ, the extension of which is above all things desirable. The apostle meets this difficulty, and expressly enjoins Christians to pray for them also. And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved. Accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, however much they fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation. Jeremiah said to the Israelites," - John Calvin's commentary

"But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. " - John Calvin's commentary

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[seer]

In 1 Timothy 4:10, does God save the "World" as he saved the believers? please explain your position on this verse.

One point at a time here Theist. Does the "all men" here include the non-elect - yes or no.

[seer]

Personally, I think it's funny how you skipped over the meat of the "calling"... (Romans)

you can't stick to one verse can you? Instead, you skip over to chapter 4.... You don't honestly believe Jesus is going to save every single person do you?

I am really starting to question your honesty here Theist. I used 1 Timothy 4:10 in my original comments to show (without question I might add) that Paul is certainly using the term "all men" to include the non-elect. This ALL in the context of one letter. You on the other hand have jumped out of the context a number of times and have attempted to import texts from other books,to destroy the meaning in this book - the book under discussion.. That is not honest to my mind.

We are to pray for the non-elect, yes, bearing in mind we don't know who the elect are. God saves "all men", in that he saves not only the jew, but also the gentile. The context in 1Tim 2:4 implies such, shortly after "All men", it setups the scope of interpretation, "kings and men in authority". It's making a type of disctinction concerning "type" not "all in creation"

Good you agree that the all men here includes the non-elect.

Also,as far as "types and kinds." Are the non-elect a type or kind? You have avoided thus question also...

[theist]

seer,

Within the scope? It's a hard question to answer...
God wants to save all types of men...
Scripture says God choose a people to save, the elect...
Therefore, God does not save all men, infact, he saves only those he chose before the creation of the foundation of the Earth. So, Is God contradicting himself in that he wants to save all men and doesn't? I don't think so, I stand by the fact that God saves all the elect, of which some are those who are over them (kings and men in authroity)...

To the reader though, we don't know who is elect- therefore, God may save the men we despise the most.

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[seer]

And let's quote Spurgeon again!

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

[theist]

it's simple seer, God wills all men to be saved, in that even he desires Kings and men in authority to be saved. Maybe I'm ignorant in logic, It seems you're saying God WANTS all men to be saved but can't save all men? Why Can't God save all men? OR! do you say he DOES save all men?

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[seer]

...It seems you're saying God WANTS all men to be saved but can't save all men?

Does God always get what He wants? Gen.6:6 "And God was sorry that He made man on the earth and it greived Him in His heart."

[theist]

seer,

a common open theist line.

I'll ask another question, does God call "all men"?

Personally, I think God does exactly what he wants:

Daniel 4:35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And [among] the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?' (NASB)
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; (NASB)


in HIS grip,

rustyb

[seer]

I' am sorry Theist, I didn't make up Genesis 6:6 or Psalm 78:41, Isa. 5:4, Jer.31:20, Matt 23:37, Acts 7:51, Rom. 10:21, and dozen of other such texts. But neither does that make me an Open Theist - which in another thread I'am arguing against....

[Kenny]

05-02-2003 @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85722#post85722)
seer:

Except in my model Kenny God's love extends to all mankind. And His choice of Adam maximizes the number of saved. There is no arbitrary reason for choosing one man over the other. The reason is love - love for all...

I think you’re evading the issue. Note that I did not say that the problems you raised fro Calvinism were identical to the problems that you have, merely that they were parallel. As a Calvinist, I believe that God loves all of humanity, desires that all humanity be saved, and seeks to maximize the number of saved persons in such a way that is commensurate with the whole of God’s purposes. I also believe that ultimately God’s purpose is to show forth His love – in all its freedom and fullness and in the full range of its characteristics. God’s choices in election are calculated towards that end. God could have prevented the da_nation of the non-elect, but God permits it for higher moral purposes.

Essentially, you believe the same thing. The only disagreement between us is the nature of the higher moral purposes. You believe that God could have created a world in which no one was da_ned (He could have disallowed freewill or created a world with just one person it whom He knew would be saved or He could have just created non moral beings such as the lower animals). And yet, God chose to create a world in which He knew certain beings would be da_ned. God willed to permit the eternal da_nation of some for higher moral purposes. You believe it and I believe it.

In Christ,
Kenny