 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
beso
12/28/00 8:52 PM
Does God Want All To Be Saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's one area where I think Open Theism is hands down above either Calvinism or Armininism: it has to do with hell. God wants all to be saved, right? (2 Pet 3:9). So why does he create people he either predestines, or at least foreknows, will be eternally lost? Why does he TRY to save them when he knows they won't be?
It seems to me Open Theism is the only view that can consistently say God truly wants EVERYONE he created to be saved/
Comments?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
12/28/00 11:46 PM
Reductio ad absurdum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So why does he create people he either predestines, or at least foreknows, will be eternally lost? Why does he TRY to save them when he knows they won't be? It seems to me Open Theism is the only view that can consistently say God truly wants EVERYONE he created to be saved/ Comments?"
Doesn't the old "free will" cliche reslove this dilemma (I am mainly referring to your first question in this post)? I understand where your comming from. It seems cruel or mean or the opposite of what a loving God would do. But I ask you this, does a loving God order the death of women and children? God killed thousands of people at a time with plagues and other things. Check out the book of Acts where God struck down two Christians. Does a loving God have a man take his Son up to a mountain and tell him to confirm his loyalty by killing him? Doesn't a scriptural passage in the Old Testament condone an ation that, as of todays standards, would be considered rape? Even the OV appears to be incompatible with the old problem of pain, which I believe "classical theism' breaks your question down into, according to your line of reasoning. Every time I think about pain and suffering and hell I am forced to remember the book of Job.
The OV is still left with the burden of "proof." The information you mentioned, that allegedly supports the OV, rests largely on subjective assertions. You have to demonstrate, aside from the whimsical notions produced by gray matter inside of our craniums, how a God that creates people he know will be lost is incompatible with a God that wants everyone to be saved.
There are various doctrines on hell held by Chritians. I find the least appealing to be the notion of an actual literal lake of burning sulfur. Fortunately, the language is metaphorical. The language surrounding heaven is the same.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/01/01 2:19 AM
Good news: God DOES want all to be saved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso, my pastor cited some verses this Sunday that reminded me of your post. While 2 Pet. 3:9 assures us that God desires all people to repent and come to know him, other scriptures explain that some people do not come to know him because they resist God's will for their salvation. These scriptures suggest that God allows us to choose whether or not we will follow God:
Deuteronomy 30:15ff: Moses says to the Israelites: "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity...Choose life, so that you and your descendents may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him..."
Joshua 24:15: Joshua challenges the Israelites saying, "Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve..."
Lamentations 3:33: The Lord "does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone."
Luke 7:30: This verse says that the Pharisees and the lawyers "rejected God's purpose for themselves."
God's will is for all people to have a saving relationship with him, and Christ's atoning sacrifice (as opposed to any effort or good work on our part) makes this possible. But Scripture also suggests that rather than coercing this relationship, God allows and enables us to choose to enter into it or reject it.
If the outcomes of our choices are known before we even exist (as in Calvinism and Arminiansim), then in what sense are they real choices? We could not have chosen an outcome contrary than the one God foreknew/predestined.
Rather than casting a shadow over God's character by concluding that he creates countless people for eternal damnation, the open view suggests that the reason some are damned in spite of God's will to save all lies in the character of creatures who reject the free gift (through Christ) of a relationship with their creator.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/01/01 11:43 AM
RE: Reductio ad absurdum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're confusing issues ilgwamh. We may discuss, if you wish, why God ordered the slaughter of the Caananites, etc... But this is completely beside the point IF you grant that God wants everyone to be saved. Do you grant this? If you do, then its fair to wonder why God creates people he is certain will end up in a state of existence that is WORSE than non-existence. Open Theism has an answer. I don't see that Arminianism (and certain Calvinism) does.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/01/01 1:04 PM
Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyone out there who can try to explain to me the Calvinist interpretation of 2 Pet 3:9? I read in Schreiner and Ware's book on Calvinism (forgot what it was called -- the Soveriegnty of God and the Bondage of the Will I think) that Calvinists believe in TWO wills in God. One will WANTS all to be saved, the other WANTS the majority not to be saved? Am I misunderstanding the view? Doesn't that make God schizophrenic? Isn't this sort of shoveling dualism into the mind of God?
Bottom line: DOES God want all to be saved, or not? Lion Lamb? Calvinist? Craig? Anyone? shed light please.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
01/01/01 6:15 PM
RE: Does God Want All To Be Saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ilgwamh wrote:
"You have to demonstrate, aside from the whimsical notions produced by gray matter inside of our craniums, how a God that creates people he know will be lost is incompatible with a God that wants everyone to be saved." I think all proof starts with reason. It just doesn't make sense that a God who says he wants everyone saved creates people for damnation.
As GDG wrote the argument for that is in the scripture. God says he wants all to be saved. If we then say that he creates some for hell aren't we calling him a liar? In one of Socrates conversations he wrote that justice is the highest virtue. I think God's justice ties into these threads. How can we say God is just if he predestines men to hell? I am interested in hearing even your 'whimsical notions' that will explain to me how a God that says he wills all to be saved is compatible with a God who creates beings he knows will be lost.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/01/01 8:43 PM
RE: Good news: God DOES want all to be saved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
You cited Lamentations 3:33 as one of the Scripture passages you used when you said, These scriptures suggest that God allows us to choose whether or not we will follow God. I'm wondering how you see Lamentations 3:33 integrated with other elements in its context. In particular, I'm interested to know how you see 3:33 integrated with 3:37-39 and 3:43-45. For surely the verses stand integrated into a coherent whole. Don’t they? Briefly describe how you believe they cohere as an integrated whole. Thanks in advance!
For your convenience I've posted the context below.
31 For men are not cast off
by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to the children of men.
34 To crush underfoot
all prisoners in the land,
35 to deny a man his rights
before the Most High,
36 to deprive a man of justice—
would not the Lord see such things?
37 Who can speak and have it happen
if the Lord has not decreed it?
38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that both calamities and good things come?
39 Why should any living man complain
when punished for his sins?
40 Let us examine our ways and test them,
and let us return to the LORD.
41 Let us lift up our hearts and our hands
to God in heaven, and say:
42 “We have sinned and rebelled
and you have not forgiven.
43 “You have covered yourself with anger and pursued us;
you have slain without pity.
44 You have covered yourself with a cloud
so that no prayer can get through.
45 You have made us scum and refuse
among the nations.
46 “All our enemies have opened their mouths
wide against us.
47 We have suffered terror and pitfalls,
ruin and destruction.”
48 Streams of tears flow from my eyes
because my people are destroyed.
49 My eyes will flow unceasingly,
without relief,
50 until the LORD looks down
from heaven and sees.
51 What I see brings grief to my soul
because of all the women of my city.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
01/01/01 9:25 PM
RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso-
There are two wills in God...depending on how you define the word. God has His sovereign will, and He has His righteous character which we are to live by, which we all don't. His righteous character is rightly called a "will" in that we are supposed to be sinless, after all, God is Holy. See the difference? God does as He pleases and accomplishes His sovereign will. We are SUPPOSED to be blameless (not that we can be blameless, don't take this out of context. We are supposed to be because God cannot require less than perfection because that would deny His character).
As for the verse from 2 Peter: I don't even see this as saying that God wants every individual everywhere to be saved. Look at the context. It is written to CHRISTIANS. If one were to write a letter, addressed to your family, and this man said he wanted to purchase everyone a car, would you think this very rich man meant your family, or the entire planet of people now and future? Obviously it would be directed toward your family. This is the case with 2 Peter. God is willing none of the ELECT should perish.
Some may say that is inserting far more into the context. I would say a definite NOT! God is longsuffering TOWARD YOU (notice Peter says YOU)that NONE (Of the elect) should perish but ALL (OF YOU, i.e. elect) should come to repentance.
If Peter is telling us that God wants to save all people, and God knows man is evil and knows not everyone will believe, is He not really only caring about numbers He can accumulate rather than the interest in people's souls? It would seem He wants only a larger number of people in Heaven. If He would just return, He would get a lot of people, and would also keep many countless millions of more people to be born from going to Hell.
Once again, the verse must be taken in context, context, context.
So I don't even see this verse as being a distinction between God's sovereign will and His righteous requirements. It is directed toward the Elect only. The way you discussed God's "two wills" was innaccurate. He isn't schitzophrenic, though I do believe the Open Theist's version of God may be a schitzoid: "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined... and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called He also justified; and these whom He justified He also glorified."
Did God predestinate persons, or are we elect in that God chose Christ and in Him we are called elect only because He was called elect, not that God chose us? If this be the case, that only Christ was predestined, why the word "these"? Perhaps "these" are Christ's other personalities?
Also, the God who "repents" and changes His mind...Is He not also the one who said He is not a man that He should repent, or a son of man that He should change His mind? Perhaps these are God's conflicting personalities which make Him "Open"?
It always seems to be a question of context. So, which is it? Is God a mind changing God when He says He "repents"? or is He a God who doesn't change His mind, as He says, and speaks anthropomorphically to His finite creatures? I would say the latter, but I guess both could be true if you want a Schitzoid God who is "Open".
So, I have gotten a little off track, forgive me. Your final question was whether God really wanted all to be saved in one will, while the other says "not all"? I hope you see this question is not accurate, so I can't even answer it, other than to say, "sorry, wrong question". I will answer a question though: Does God want all men to be saved? I would say no. Anyone else agree?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/01/01 11:21 PM
RE: RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, CHF,
You said, I will answer a question though: Does God want all men to be saved? I would say no. Anyone else agree? You have tackled a difficult question. I agree with you! Surely 2 Peter 3:9 does not mean that God wants every person without exception to be saved. It also does not meant that God does not want anyone at all to perish. Anyone who thinks so must deal with a host of other Scripture passages, including Proverbs 16:4, which says,
The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.
It's obvious that we have to recognize that God has assigned a purpose for the wicked. Their assigned purpose is the Day of Judgment. That means that God has a plan or purpose. It includes the wicked, specific wicked people. What a horrible but truthful thought!
Of course, we all have to come to terms with how Proverbs 16:4 integrates compatibly with Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’
We must embrace the truth of Proverbs 16:4 in such a manner that we do not use it to nullify the truth expressed in Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11. Likewise, we must embrace the truth of Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 in such a manner that we do not use it to nullify the truth of Proverbs 16:4. This is what we call compatibilism.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
01/01/01 10:30 PM
Clarification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. Ergo, you said, "I think your confusing issues." I'll try to elaborate in this post.
"We may discuss, if you wish, why God ordered the slaughter of the Caananites, etc... "
Just to clarify, I do not need an apologetical reason as to why God ordered the death of infants. That account, along with the other issues I rasied pose no threat or burden on my faith. They are traversed speedbumps in my case. I'll try to explain the purpose of those details in a bit.
"But this is completely beside the point IF you grant that God wants everyone to be saved. Do you grant this?"
The Bible clearly teaches that. Yes, I grant that God wants everyone to be saved.
"If you do, then its fair to wonder why God creates people he is certain will end up in a state of existence that is WORSE than non-existence."
I concur, it is "fair" to wonder why God creates people he knows will reject his Son. It is also fair to wonder why the sky is violet or why God allowed what happened to Job to occur. It is fair to wonder all sorts of things. Wondering why God would create people He knows will reject his Son does not logically support the OV over Calvinism or Arminianism. You may, based upon your experiences, feel a loving God wouldn't do that. Well, many people feel a loving God wouldn't have innocent infants slaughtered. Feelings are one thing, evidence is another. Many feel a loving God would have stopped the crusades or stepped in during the Holocaust. It seems, according to your line of reasoning, what a person feels a loving God should or should not do is actually what God should or should not do. Subjective proposals advanced by fallible beings do not determine the character of God.
No answer is needed for a subjective proposal. If you could define some sort of standard in which to judge by then your question would be valid. Without a standard in which to compare it to its people arguing with each other saying my unsubstantiated opinion is better than your unsubstantiated opinion. You may claim the Bible as your standard. You may say, the character of God unmasked by the Bible is opposite of a God that creates people he know, by their own free will, will reject his son. That is why I mentioned those details up above. Here they are once more:
"But I ask you this, does a loving God order the death of women and children? God killed thousands of people at a time with plagues and other things. Check out the book of Acts where God struck down two Christians. Does a loving God have a man take his Son up to a mountain and tell him to confirm his loyalty by killing him? Doesn't a scriptural passage in the Old Testament condone an ation that, as of todays standards, would be considered rape? Even the OV appears to be incompatible with the old problem of pain, which I believe "classical theism' breaks your question down into, according to your line of reasoning. Every time I think about pain and suffering and hell I am forced to remember the book of Job."
So much for using the Bible as a standard. I am not saying these verses imply God is not a God of love. Just that opinions may vary. Evidence is what is needed. The Bible tells us God's ways are above our ways. When Job questioned God what answer did the Lord give him?
"Open Theism has an answer."
No argument here.
"I don't see that Arminianism (and certain Calvinism) does."
Free Will is an answer. Regardless of the fact that God knows they will choose to reject him they do so by their own free will.
God declared everything he created good. Humans sinned and brought death into the world. We can't blame God for what we did. God gave us free will. We have the ability to love or to hate, to do good or to do evil. It seems he didn't want a bunch of robots programmed to always do good and always do his will. He wanted us to freely love him and to freely do good (His will). Every time we are about to do something bad he could stop us but that would take away our free will. Think of it like this: God gives you a 10 dollar bill and says you can buy whatever you want (free will). You decide to buy a pack of cigarettes. But God stops you saying you can buy anything but them. Next you decide to buy this months issue of Playboy but right before you do God says you can't buy this either. God could keep doing this until you find something good. God is not letting you choose anything evil. Who is really spending the money? We would only be capable (pretty much forced) to buy good things or do good things. Again, it seems God wanted beings who were alive and could freely choose him. Not robots!
Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe is a price worth paying for free will--that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings--then we make take it it is worth playing."
"It just doesn't make sense that a God who says he wants everyone saved creates people for damnation."
You seem to be speaking of predestination. Something I was not supporting. Lets say God predestined us and created people for hell. Well if thats the case who reallycares what happens? If I get sent to a literal lake of burning sulfur its like me putting a cokkkie in the oven for all eternity. if all my actions are predestined then I do not believe I am really me. People are not actually "people" in your view. Everything I am saying is what I am predestined to say. The pain I feel is predestined pain. That is part of the free will argument in a nutshell. True love is only possible with free will beings. I'm sure you heard this at some point.or another. Just for the record, I am an oddball. I believe in both free will and predestination. I believe the Bible teaches both concepts.
"If we then say that he creates some for hell aren't we calling him a liar?"
C.S. Lewis addressed your question as I understand it (although I may be misunderstanding it) in Mere Christianity.
"C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 52
Christians, then, believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World. And, of course, that raises problems. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?
But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will made it possible. "
But if you were saying the notion of God wanting everyone to be saved and Him predestining people to reject His free giftl is contradictory then our views coincide. I believe in free will and predestination so I think I'm covered.
"I am interested in hearing even your 'whimsical notions' that will explain to me how a God that says he wills all to be saved is compatible with a God who creates beings he knows will be lost."
God wants everyone to be saved. People reject him through their own free will. He may know this in advance but they still reject him of their own free will.
Is not "God's ways and understanding are higher than our ways and our understanding" a valid solution to a subjective question/assertion?
If I wanted to make a case for the OV I would not use fallible human opinions as a source of truth. I may try to provide evidence of God's existence to a nonbeliever. I would not state God exists because in my opinion he does. I would try to provide ample evidence in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
I didn't even read this myself but its probably good knowing the site it comes from:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
Peace,
Vinnie
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
01/01/01 10:47 PM
RE: Does God Want All To Be Saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.
It's obvious that we have to recognize that God has assigned a purpose for the wicked. Their assigned purpose is the Day of Judgment. That means that God has a plan or purpose. It includes the wicked, specific wicked people. What a horrible but truthful thought!"
I said up above I believe God wants all to be saved. God does not want people to reject him. But as Proverbs 16:4 tells us, God works out everything for his own ends. This includes those he knows in advance will not traverse the narrow road. God displays his power through the wicked. Check out Exodus 9:15-16. "15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." God does not wish anyone to perish but God is sovereign in every life, even those that are perishing. Also read Romans 2:5-11. (Compliments of the Niv study Bible).
Peace,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/02/01 2:17 AM
RE: RE: Good news: God DOES want all to be saved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for GDG, but the relationship Lam. 3:33 has with the rest of the chapter seems pretty self evident. God is going to judge Israel big time, but he's telling them this is not his ideal. He "does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men" -- though sometimes he has to do it.
The problem with the "two wills" doctrine, as I see it, is that one has to accept that God "willingly" grieves certain people -- the majority presumably -- throughout eternity.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TheOpenTheist
01/02/01 8:58 AM
RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "two wills" concept boils down to one will really. God's "secret will" is ALWAYS victorious, so whatever the "revealed will" is is ultimately irrelevant. It's a sick view. Imagine telling Zosia that God willed the evil done to her. Imagine telling her mother to just accept it and believe that there's a greater good that will eventually come out of it. That's the kind of twisted philosophy that can drive a person nuts
In the gracious and merciful God, who is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and who repents from doing harm,
TheOpenTheist
Joel 2:13
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
CHF
01/02/01 7:33 PM
RE: RE: RE: Good news: God DOES want all to be saved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd says:
"I can't speak for GDG, but the relationship Lam. 3:33 has with the rest of the chapter seems pretty self evident. God is going to judge Israel big time, but he's telling them this is not his ideal. He "does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men" -- though sometimes he has to do it. The problem with the "two wills" doctrine, as I see it, is that one has to accept that God "willingly" grieves certain people -- the majority presumably -- throughout eternity. Greg"
(before I begin, please keep in mind that I am straight to the point and anything which seems to be ill-directed shouldn't be taken in such manner. I don't care to tip-toe around, that makes things much more painful to read)
I have no problem with saying God willingly (even more than willingly!) brings destruction upon people. God is glorified by it, which is why Scripture speaks of God raising up pharoah. Besides this, God says that He will laugh at the final destruction of the reprobate. HE WILL LAUGH. I am sure you would take this as an anthropomorphism (after all, a God who laughs at the judgement to fall on certain men doesn't jive with your panentheistic god). The truth is plain as day, God finds satisfaction in judgement. Perhaps I didn't understand your final comment about having a problem with a God who willingly grieves people for eternity, but it seems you would have problems with the idea of Hell. With God's satisfaction in the destruction of the evil man, and His requirements of Christ receiving our judgement at the cross, it should seem obvious that God is going to grieve and torment people for an eternity in Hell, and He will laugh. With your critique of the so-called "two wills doctrine", you failed to define it before you brought an accusation against it. I am not sure I know how it would be defined in Reformed theology, and seeing that the open view does much damage to charicatures, and not the real version, please define this doctrine and then perhaps someone can respond to it.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
01/02/01 7:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Lion-Lamb!
I love your screen name! It should be an excellent reminder to us all as we discuss that Christ is a Lion of sorts, and not just a meak and feeble Lamb. I see a wonderful truth in this portrayal of Christ which Classic Christendom has upheld.
Do I think God wants all to be saved? No. And perhaps yes. For I do remember that He doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, He is pleased at repentance. God is pleased with a wonderful act of humility (produced by the Holy Spirit no doubt!) which means God is pleased most by this wonderful regeneration and cannot deny Himself. That is most pleasing (joyous, anthropomorphically speaking!). God doesn't delight in the wicked person's wickedness physical death, but I would go so far to say that He delights(perhaps satisfied is a better word?)in His wrath being poured out on the reprobate.
So what is the difference? God is delighted in His work of Salvation, and is unquenchable wrath finds satisfaction in the destruction of the wicked. So God doesn't want all to be saved, though this would be a delight for Him if it brought Him glory. But as you have wonderfully shown through Scripture, God does raise up the wicked and speak both good and evil to come...both of which will glorify Him.
I don't see how there could be any other more rational/biblical idea other than compatabalism!
as an aside Lion-Lamb, have you ever read the Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse? Just wondering because that book helped to shed light on the drama of redemption and the purposes of evil at the present.
Soli Deo Gloria
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/02/01 8:32 PM
The Invisible War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF
No I've never read Barnhouse's The Invisible War. However, I knew of the book. With your recommendation, I'll have to take a look at it.
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/02/01 9:35 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for being so straight forward CHF. Why beat around the bush? What I'm wondering is this: If God finds such satisfaction in eternally tormenting people, what does he mean when he says he "does not willing afflict or grieve anyone" (Lam. 3)? And what does he mean when he says that he does not take delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ezek 18. 33)? And what does he mean when he says of various rebellious people "all day long I stretched out my hands to a rebellious people (Rom. 10)? And what does he mean when he says that he's not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3)?
I grant that God mocks those who mock him. But on the basis of the trajectory of Scripture I have just cited, I have to believe he always wishes it wasn't so.
On the issue of Prov. 16:4: I am always impressed by how "obvious" one interpretation is to some people -- in this case, it is "obvious" God doesn't want to save everybody, since its obvious this verse says God specifically makes certain people for destruction.
In point of fact, the passage need not imply that GOD made each person wicked FOR THE PURPOSE of destroying him. Since Scripture teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), that God loves all people (John 3:16) and thus does not willing afflict anyone (Lam. 3:33) or will their damnation (Ezek. 18:30–32; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9), it seems to me reasonable to seek for at least the possibility of an alternative explanation.
(I offer this one in my discussion of compatibilistic texts under the Spiritual Warfare section of this site). Proverbs 16:4 is using the language of moral order, common among ancient Semetic and Ancient Near East Proverbs. God set up creation such that good is (eventually) rewarded and evil (eventually) punished. In this sense the “purpose” for the wicked is found in the “day of trouble” that shall come upon them. It’s significant to note that the verb translated in the NRSV as “made” (pâ’al) can be translated as “works out” (as in the NIV), an observation that confirms our interpretation. God steers the wickedness of agents so that their end eventually fits the moral order of creation. Moreover, the word translated as “purpose” (ma’ neh) can be translated as “answer.”
The meaning of the passage, then, is that God works things out so that the end of the wicked “answers” their wickedness. They eventually reap what they sow. We thus need not entertain the gruesome prospect of God creating people for the expressed purpose of having them suffer endlessly -- while he laughs and enjoys the whole escapade.
Greg
ps. On the "two wills of God" -- in response to CHF... I know of only one usage of this concept. It describes God's sovereign will in contrast to his moral will. Do you know of another -- one that avoids the problem this one is encumbered with?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
01/02/01 11:17 PM
RE: Yes!! God wills all to be saved!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Dr. Boyd,
He has done it once again!
Through all the threads that have been woven he has
consistantly been able to bring the truth back to light.
His arguments have been rational and have made what the scripture teaches clear.
I appreciate the way he gets right to the heart of the issue.
He is truly annointed.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
01/03/01 12:07 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Two wills in God ???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd-
I just about to post my response when I lost it! Arrrgggghhh! I will respond later
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
01/03/01 12:19 AM
RE: Does God Want All To Be Saved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF
I was writing on the other thread at the same time you must have been writing on this one and was almost finished when mine disappeared too!!
I feel your pain. Adiaphora What's up with that?!
Is it an internet glich or did we get too tired and hit a wrong key?
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:02 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|