Posted on 01/20/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by CCWoody
AMEN!
Unless you want to maintain that God has, or rather will break, a promise, then that verse does not mean what you want it to say. Rather it does teach the Eternal Security of the saints and Limited Atonement among other things.
Real free will includes the capability to decide for or against. One cannot say that real free will is simply the freedom to do what one wants unless one is CAPABLE of wanting anything Jesus was capable of desiring anything. He chose not to desire some things. "Father take this cup from me. (an inner desire). Yet not my will but thine be done (an inner desire.)" In this passage Jesus desired BOTH sides of a decision about the cross. He freely chose to do the Father's will.
Since Jesus understands REAL FREE WILL, and since "all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made," and since He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and He is all-Powerful, therefore, be it affirmed that God is POWERFUL ENOUGH to make it so that mankind has real free will, to include the capability to "want" both sides of any issue.
919 posted on 1/24/02 11:08 AM Eastern by xzins
I think there's some other stuff up there on the definition as well.
To me, capability and capacity mean that one has the power to do so. Someone else above (I believe OrthoPresbyterian) pointed out that "propensity" indicates a "bent" or "desire" toward doing something.
God has the power to do anything. God does not desire to do all things of which he is capable.
Is that getting closer to an explanation you can live with?
Did you really mean to write this? Or are you simply so afraid of what is actually written in the Word that you would even deny God's Omniscience?
No, it is a direct quote from Palmer's book which purported to cite it from Calvin's Institutes. In fairness to Palmer, it seems rather obvious that the word 'himself' is a reference to man, and not to God. As for God's Omniscience, I would be the last person to deny that God is Omniscient.
And it also demonstrates that sometimes, what God WANTS is NOT what God has chosen....presumably because of a more important, overriding reason.
Okay. Objection granted (as I never proposed that no miracles were performed in Tyre and Sidon, just not the particular ones referenced in Matthew 11 which God foreknew would provoke a general repentance). So, counter-argument irrelevant to the case at hand, but granted for the sake of charity.
DID GOD CHOOSE NOT TO PERFORM SUFFICIENT MIRACLES OF THE TYPE PERFORMED IN CHORAZIN AND BETHSAIDA SO AS TO PROVOKE A GENERAL REPENTANCE? ~~ FALSE. There is no evidence in Jesus' words to indicate that the lack of sufficient miracles was a result of God's intentional choosing.
So... did someone instruct God that He was not allowed to perform such equivalent salvific miracles in Tyre and Sidon?
But, this is not a material objection, as your next point admits of God's free choice in this matter ("This number and/or type of miracles were not performed. However, there is no indication in this verse that this reflected the desire of God, simply the choice of God"), so you do not deny God's free choice in the end. Ergo, this counter-argument I regard as resolved in your next point:
WERE MIRACLES OF THE TYPE PERFORMED IN C/D NOT PERFORMED IN T/S SO AS TO PROVOKE A GENERAL REPENTANCE? ~~ TRUE. This number and/or type of miracles were not performed. However, there is no indication in this verse that this reflected the desire of God, simply the choice of God. (e.g., "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Another example of God's desire compared with God's choice.) God's desire about Tyre and Sidon is shown in Jesus' above compassion when in Tyre as well as in: Acts 21 2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail. 3 After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. 4 Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.
Okay. Your theology leaves us with a God who desired to see general repentance in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, but did sovereignly choose NOT to perform the Chorazin/Bethsaida/Capernaum-type equivalent miracles which He precisely foreknew would most certainly bring about a general repentance in Tyre and Sidon.
Ergo, having it in His Power to select either:
God sovereignly chose the second option: NON-performance of such equivalent miracles, which God foreknew would result in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom's freely choosing NON-Repentance unto Damnation. Ergo, God from all Eternity predestined that the choice of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would be to NOT Repent, and be Damned.
QED. (The particular doctrines of "Calvinism" are comparative adiaphora for the purpose of this discussion. The question is, "Does God's absolute predestination pre-determine the choices of Men to Repent unto Salvation, or to Not Repent unto Damnation?" The answer of Matthew 11 is, "Yes". Case closed).
I can live with it: God does not desire to do all things of which he is capable. You have properly linked the will with desires. This is the only "real" free will which does exist. In like manner, man will or will not do something which is perfectly in line with his desires; even if he has the capability.
Therefore, man does not have the desire to repent and so he never ever will; just as the scriptures affirm:
Isaiah 64:5b-7 You are indeed angry, for we have sinned--In these ways we continue; and we need to be saved.But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities.
Romans 3:10-11,23 As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Yes. You even agreed (albeit the second time around, now) to speak to the Biblically recorded facts of the case, as I requested. For that I thank you.
Throughout it I use God's words and demonstrate a high regard for God and his words.
Mmmmm... I could reserve that *my own opinion* is that it took you awhile and much wrangling on my part, but I am nonetheless bound by charity to acknowledge that you certainly came around to it and did agree to address God's Word directly and forthrightly.
I understand the use of hyperbole and assume your being dramatic in the above accusation.
Yes, absolutely. I accuse my reader of "hating Jesus' words" for the specific purpose of dramatic shock effect, so that they actually sit down and read Matthew 11. But, I do not leave it at the point of accusation (which would be wrongful of me); rather, I specifically encourage my reader to Prove Me Wrong -- that is, to prove that they do not hate the words of Jesus in Matthew 11 by demonstrating a willingness to address those words directly.
I am delighted when someone shows my accusation to be overly harsh, by showing me that they are willing to directly and forthrightly address Jesus' words.
I will point out, however, that it makes you seem a little weird.
I know. No bother.
Is that the impression you're hoping to give?
I honestly could not possibly care less. My purpose is to shock my reader into reading Scripture and thinking about what it is saying; as long as I provoke a rigorous and thoughtful study of God's Word, their emotional impression of me on a personal basis is a matter of precisely zero consequence.
No, it does not teach this at all. The verse:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.The Lord has made a Promise. Nothing will override this promise. Peter is explaining precisely why the Lord has not fulfilled this Promise. It is precisely because He is not willing that any to whom He made that promise perish, but that all to whom He made that promise should come to repentance.
In order for you to say that God does not do everything He want to do, you must throw out verses like Isaiah 46:10 which says: Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, "My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure."
And you would have to throw out Psalm 115:3 which says: But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.
And you would have to throw out Psalm 135:6 which says: Whatever the LORD pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places.
you said:The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction
Yes....
The Fear of the Lord is not terror or cringing, debilitating fear, it is reverance and awe.
Wrong.
The Hebrew word for fear in Proverbs 1:7 is Strong's Number: 03374
Definition
1. fear, terror, fearing
a. fear, terror
b. awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear)
c. fear (of God), respect, reverence, piety
d. revered
The primary definition is FEAR and TERROR.
What I'm referring to is the "hell-fire and brimstone" methods, the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type of preaching that terrifies the listener so much that they respond out of fear for their very lives.
Jesus said in Matthew 10?
"28": And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
When the fear passes, so does the commitment.
If the commitment passes, they never truly feared God and they were never truly committed to Him either.
As to the second half of the verse you quoted, you aren't trying to imply something, are you?
God said it not me....
Absolutely, and Psalm 119:120 says this: My flesh trembles for fear of You, And I am afraid of Your judgments.
And, I personally believe the Apostle Paul when he says this (2 Corinthians 5:11): Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men...
BTW, I read "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" when I was but a babe. It scared me pretty good, but I never hated it. Hmmmm!
I'll have to admit that the first time that I even heard the title I hated it, but that was before the Lord opened my eyes of understanding...
Ahhh....the once saved always saved excuse maker has chimed in. Let me ask you......what good is repentance for the believer?
If I don't repent, how can I expect to be forgiven?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.