***I acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for the uses of “want” and “need” to bleed into each other, however I am obviously talking about normal usage in the English language.***
I’d wander past ‘possible’ and over in the ‘certain’ aisle.
***I was defending an attack against Reformed theology asserting that God has need of evil.***
It was no attack; it was a description. Reformed theology requires evil. Proof?
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III.I).
God ordained whatsoever comes to pass in Reformed theology. Whatsoever means ‘everything’. Everything that there was, is and will be.
God has always existed. God created everything. If the Reformed God created everything and ordained everything, then He created and ordained evil. The second part of the paragraph:
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin
is merely backpedalling and attempting to negate portions of the first part.
***Rom 8:28-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Are there others besides the elect who are foreknown, predestined, conformed to the likeness of Christ, called, justified, and glorified? I just don’t think so.)***
Predestination to heaven does NOT imply predestination to hell, especially since it is never ever written down in Scripture anywhere.
***Matt 24:22-24 : 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible. (Clearly Jesus teaches that some are elect and some are not.)***
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ELECT/ says that:
Otherwise, and prevalently in the New Testament, it denotes a human community, also described as believers, saints, the Israel of God; regarded as in some sense selected by Him from among men, objects of His special favor, and correspondingly called to special holiness and service.
It most certainly does not say that anyone is predestined to hell or even imply it. It says that these elect are called to special holiness and service. A John the Baptist or Mother Teresa, say.
***There simply can be no argument that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the elect and all men.***
The definitions are at odds with Scripture.
***If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off?
Not yet, for it does not please me.***
I hope that you are joking here.
***To carry the analogy to the next level, why would God do the figurative same to us if we cannot understand Him or love Him as He wishes?
As I foreshadowed, comparatively what matters are God’s choices, not our performances. God gives saving grace to His sheep, but not all are His sheep. He knows that there is nothing the non-sheep can do, but those were His wishes anyway. Those are His affairs and I do not question Him. My response is to be VERY thankful and VERY sheepish. :)***
John 10:
14
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
16
I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus comes for all men. The flock that He has are the believers - His mission (which he has passed on to us) is to go and get all men and bring them into His flock.
It was no attack; it was a description. Reformed theology requires evil. Proof?
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III.I).
From this quote I see no sense at all of God requiring evil. I see God making choices. Whatsoever came to pass was His choice, not because He was forced or compelled to by need. The "freely" is the giveaway.
God has always existed. God created everything. If the Reformed God created everything and ordained everything, then He created and ordained evil. The second part of the paragraph:
The second part of the paragraph talks about second causes, which negates your above assertion. God did ordain that evil will happen, but He did not create it as if it was a "thing" to be created. He set the circumstances to get the desired results, not based on need.
Predestination to heaven does NOT imply predestination to hell, especially since it is never ever written down in Scripture anywhere.
If one holds to simple logic of course it does (the WCF says that logical deductions from scripture are fine). If SOME are predestined to Heaven, and only THOSE go to Heaven, then it means that SOME are NOT so predestined and there is only one other destination.
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ELECT/ says that: ................. "It [the NT] most certainly does not say that anyone is predestined to hell or even imply it. It says that these elect are called to special holiness and service. A John the Baptist or Mother Teresa, say."
Of course it implies it, if one can understand what an implication is. There is NO OTHER PLACE TO GO. :) The elect are saved, the non-elect are not saved. Real simple. And whoever wrote this is dead wrong about who the elect are in the first place. Letters were written TO THE ELECT in the NT, not to individual stand outs like he mentions, but to a general group of people (a church) among whom there were likely to be many elect. This author is way off.
FK: ***There simply can be no argument that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the elect and all men.***
The definitions are at odds with Scripture.
On this point, what definitions are at odds with which scriptures? The Bible is clear that there is such a group as the elect, and it is also clear that this group does NOT encompass all men. Dispute that if you can.
***If your dog does not wish to understand or is incapable, do you whip out your .44 magnum and blow his head off? ----- Not yet, for it does not please me.***
I hope that you are joking here.
:)
John 10: 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jesus comes for all men. The flock that He has are the believers - His mission (which he has passed on to us) is to go and get all men and bring them into His flock.
No, no, no!!! :) That interpretation MAKES JESUS A LIAR!! Jesus SAYS that He will lead the other sheep and they WILL hear His voice, and there WILL be one flock. If the other sheep are all men, then Jesus is a liar because we KNOW this has never happened and never will happen according to the Bible.