Rejecting the will of God for oneself.

[squirrelyguy]

“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” (Luke 7:30)

If it is possible to reject the will of God for oneself regarding baptism, how much of a stretch is it to say that one can reject the will of God concerning salvation?

Since the Pharisees successfully rejected God’s will that they be baptized, are we to think that God is (by Calvinist reasoning) incapable of causing them to obey His will? But since God didn’t cause them to obey His will, what do you suppose His greatest desire is, if not that they obey Him out of free will?

 

[eternomade]

“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” (Luke 7:30)

If it is possible to reject the will of God for oneself regarding baptism, how much of a stretch is it to say that one can reject the will of God concerning salvation?

Since the Pharisees successfully rejected God’s will that they be baptized, are we to think that God is (by Calvinist reasoning) incapable of causing them to obey His will? But since God didn’t cause them to obey His will, what do you suppose His greatest desire is, if not that they obey Him out of free will?

Can man obey God on His own? This is the teaching of Total Depravity. Their wills were not free. They were enslaved to something. Just like my will isn't free.

The finished work of Christ is finished. He has already saved His remnant. Those who believe this Gospel(or will believe) are in Christ. Those who dont are not. God is not waiting around for people to believe in Him....

"The Bible clearly teaches that although faith, as ordained by God, is a necessary and sure result of Christ's finished work of Justification, faith is not a condition or requirement to be met for salvation. Rather, it is an evidence of salvation. It's important that we make this distinction. You don't give yourself physical life by deciding to breath. Breathing is evidence that you are alive. So it is with faith as it pertains to spiritual life. To believe that my faith, my act of belief, is the determining factor or plays a causal role in salvation is to have faith in faith, not faith in Christ. True faith in Christ rests in that which He alone accomplished in satisfying God's law and justice - righteousness."

Randy Wages, Strait Talk about Eternity

 

[PeanutGallery]

...
The finished work of Christ is finished. He has already saved His remnant. Those who believe this Gospel(or will believe) are in Christ. ...

I don't quite understand, are you saying those who will believe are already in Christ?

 

[His clay]

“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” (Luke 7:30)

If it is possible to reject the will of God for oneself regarding baptism, how much of a stretch is it to say that one can reject the will of God concerning salvation?

Since the Pharisees successfully rejected God’s will that they be baptized, are we to think that God is (by Calvinist reasoning) incapable of causing them to obey His will? But since God didn’t cause them to obey His will, what do you suppose His greatest desire is, if not that they obey Him out of free will?

Two basic distinctions need mentioning, for different categories exist. God's decree is different than His moral prescriptions for His creatures. The effectual call is different than the general call. Jumping to the idea of "God . . . is incapable" is a non-sequitur born of ignorance of the above basic distinctions in Calvinism; thusly, it is not even close to Calvinistic reasoning. Please do some research before making elementary category errors and leaping to poor conclusions.

The use of "free will" is used in the post quoted above, but it is not defined. Because the idea of "free will" is precisely the target of much dispute between Calvinism and Arminianism and non-Calvinism, the opening post has only muddied the water with ill-defined terminology. Calvinists can agree that people voluntarily do what they do, but they are not ultimately autonomous, but my point here assumes a bit more knowledge of my reader.

In summary then, Squirrelyguy brings up some interesting questions. I can appreciate the opening use of Scripture, but the following questions demonstrate a rather basic lack of knowledge regarding the discussion. "Calvinist reasoning" is the wording used in the opening post, but the reasoning assumed to be true of Calvinists is a false representation. Calvinists don't leap to conclusions like that because they have basic distinctions in place, like effectual/general and decree/prescriptions.

The final speculative questions seem out of place for one who would seek to get his thoughts from the Bible. Asking "what do you suppose" is asking the reader to play God by assuming his own mind's eye to be the speculative judge of the situation. Is there is a particular scripture you wish to discuss about God's greatest desire? "Free will" is the typical autonomous philosophical approach to the situation (I can grant that), but I just don't see that in Scripture. In contrast, I see autonomy directly related to sin, the sinful mindset; and the philosophical notion is directly repudiated by multiple explicit biblical texts.

 

[preacher4truth]

"Will" here is a little misleading in as far as how some are taking it. It is not as though they thwarted God's will for them, as there are differing definitions translated "will" in the NT.

2 Peter 3:9 uses the word "willing" in the sense some are trying to force into the meaning of Luke 7:30. "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, (the elect, contextually) not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

The ESV and NASB both use the word "wishing" instead of "willing" yet the word means His "deliberate will and purpose." That shows God has determined the result, and, that it will take place. "Will" in Luke 7:30 isn't the same in meaning but rather means "counsel, command."

The simple fact is this was God's counsel, or a command in essence, and none of us should be shocked that sinful man doesn't obey God's counsel or commands.

 

[CrowCross]

"Will" here is a little misleading in as far as how some are taking it. It is not as though they thwarted God's will for them, as there are differing definitions translated "will" in the NT.

2 Peter 3:9 uses the word "willing" in the sense some are trying to force into the meaning of Luke 7:30. "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, (the elect, contextually) not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

The ESV and NASB both use the word "wishing" instead of "willing" yet the word means His "deliberate will and purpose." That shows God has determined the result, and, that it will take place. "Will" in Luke 7:30 isn't the same in meaning but rather means counsel, command.

The simple fact is this was God's counsel, or a command in essence, and none of us should be shocked that sinful man doesn't obey God's counsel or commands.

Thank you for that explanation....many people assign one definition to the word "will".

 

[His clay]

Thank you for that explanation....many people assign one definition to the word "will".

Exactly! That's very close to the point I was trying to make by pointing out the difference in categories: God's prescriptive requirements to His creatures vs God's decree. The Pharisees reject God's requirements, but this just means that their will is enslaved, and it demonstrates that their wills were not free from their depraved natures.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thank you for that explanation....many people assign one definition to the word "will".

Thanks!

 

[His clay]

Thanks!

 

[CrowCross]

Exactly! That's very close to the point I was trying to make by pointing out the difference in categories: God's prescriptive requirements to His creatures vs God's decree. The Pharisees reject God's requirements, but this just means that their will is enslaved, and it demonstrates that their wills were not free from their depraved natures.

I also dislike it when people post only half the verse or thought...then assign a narrative to the partial content.

 

[Theo1689]

I also dislike it when people post only half the verse or thought...then assign a narrative to the partial content.

That's one of the reasons why I had once been looking for a Bible without versification. Verse numbers make it very easy to find a passage you're looking for, but it artificially gives the wrong impression that "verses" exist as independent thoughts. They do not.

And yes, when they split verses in half even further.... Oy vey!

 

[ReverendRV]

I also dislike it when people post only half the verse or thought...then assign a narrative to the partial content.

His OPs sound sensible; but y'all always do a great job...

 

[Theo1689]

What a convoluted bunch of garbage. The ESV and NASB use the English "wishing" because the Greek source expresses God's DESIRE.

I absolutely love when people who have no clue about Koine Greek proclaim themselves "experts" in the language.

From BDAG:
βούλομαι
1. to desire to have or experience someth., with implication of planning accordingly, wish, want, desire
2. to plan on a course of action, intend, plan, will

God desires that men not perish.

2 Pet. 3:8-9 speaking specifically of the BELOVED, the US-WARD, not "all men" in general:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God made a "WAY" so that men will not perish.

God mad a way so that the "BELOVED" will not perish.

 

[His clay]

What a convoluted bunch of garbage. The ESV and NASB use the English "wishing" because the Greek source expresses God's DESIRE.

Like I've said before. God isn't a man. He doesn't work like men do. God doesn't NEED ANYTHING. He is self satisfying and Innately Perfect.

YOU create a scenario wherein God NEEDS YOU.

God doesn't NEED YOU. God NEEDS no one.

God desires that men not perish. God made a "WAY" so that men will not perish.

The opening sentence is arbitrary opinion, an emotional reaction. I view that as more of how PY feels than the actual case.

PY states, "YOU create a scenario wherein God NEEDS YOU." I see nothing in p4t's post that indicates this; thus, py is simply misrepresenting and misconstruing p4t's post. This is called a straw man fallacy that py is displaying.

 

[preacher4truth]

The opening sentence is arbitrary opinion, an emotional reaction. I view that as more of how PY feels than the actual case.

PY states, "YOU create a scenario wherein God NEEDS YOU." I see nothing in p4t's post that indicates this; thus, py is simply misrepresenting and misconstruing p4t's post. This is called a straw man fallacy that py is displaying.

Exactly, nothing I stated remotely suggests that. Some people twist what others say, misrepresent them, and I generally begin ignoring their responses. This is unfortunately status quo for this person. Thanks for being honest and exposing the misrepresentation.

 

[preacher4truth]

I absolutely love when people who have no clue about Koine Greek proclaim themselves "experts" in the language.

From BDAG:
βούλομαι
1. to desire to have or experience someth., with implication of planning accordingly, wish, want, desire
2. to plan on a course of action, intend, plan, will



2 Pet. 3:8-9 speaking specifically of the BELOVED, the US-WARD, not "all men" in general:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



God mad a way so that the "BELOVED" will not perish.

That's the exact truth.

 

[His clay]

Theo provide the definition that establishes what I said to be true. Thank you Theo!



I was referencing why p4t said what he/she said. I've engaged with p4t before. Your response requirements are arbitrary narrow.

Misplaced referent: I wasn't referring to Theo's definition as an arbitrary emotional reaction. I was referring to your opening, arbitrary statement: "What a convoluted bunch of garbage." Theo's point is a red herring fallacy from you (unrelated to the topic at issue) that does not deal with what I was addressing.

If you are referencing why p4t said what was said, and you have engaged with p4t before, then you can kindly provide your evidence from past discussion. Or you can sit there with an obvious lack of evidence for your misrepresentation. The choice is yours. p4t has already stated, "nothing I stated remotely suggests that." Hence, PY, you have the burden of proof for your accusation. Either substantiate your accusation as grounded upon a quotation of what p4t said, or succumb to straw man fallacy. Again, the choice is yours.

 

[Theo1689]

Absurd. The reason is clear. The reason he sees what he sees in what he wrote, which I quoted, is because of his Calvinist position. This forum is dedicated to that discussion.

You have no clue what you're talking about.
You are MISREPRESENTING me (as usual).

The reason I am a Calvinist is BECAUSE I see what I see in Scripture.
You have it exactly BACKWARDS.

You are forced to misrepresent reality, because reality doesn't match your beliefs.

Yet is a contrast. It rejects the rightful meaning of the word "wishing" to be an accurate translation of the Greek source.

And what is your expertise in Koine Greek, that anyone should recognize your ramblings as having any reliability whatsoever?

 

[Theo1689]

Theo..... you quoted BDAG.

You have a knack for stating the obvious.

From BDAG:
βούλομαι
1. to desire to have or experience someth., with implication of planning accordingly, wish, want, desire.

Your bias caused you to miss the obvious.

Your continued ad hominem and name-calling is unacceptable.
But I imagine it is all you know how to do.

For your information, I didn't "miss" ANYTHING.

The very definition you provided proves you wrong.

No, it did no such thing.
It is YOUR bias (to apply Prov. 26:5 to the situation) that causes YOU to miss "with implication of acting accordingly".

I will note that you dodged my question of your level of expertise in Koine Greek.
I will conclude from your running away that you have zero expertise, and any comments you make about the Greek meanings are worthless.

Have a nice day.

 

[His clay]

Absurd. The reason is clear. The reason he sees what he sees in what he wrote, which I quoted, is because of his Calvinist position. This forum is dedicated to that discussion.

I quoted what he wrote and if you pay attention to what he wrote, the evidence is there. Here. I will quote the exact line.

The ESV and NASB both use the word "wishing" instead of "willing" yet the word means His "deliberate will and purpose."

Do you SEE the word "yet"?

Yet is a contrast. It rejects the rightful meaning of the word "wishing" to be an accurate translation of the Greek source.

He then gives an "Amen" to a definition that rightfully establishes word "wishing"......

The choice is up to you believe such nonsense or not. Again. The choice is up to you.

"You're the one that made mistake. Not me. You referenced the wrong statement." Arbitrary denial in direct light of contrary evidence

Regarding the rest of your response, you have completely missed the issue. Your past statement, "YOU create a scenario wherein God NEEDS YOU" is the straw man I was referring to. As such, your response here has not even attempted to substantiate your accusation. How does your discussion over wishing/willing have anything to do with saying "God NEEDS YOU."??? Since you have not addressed the actual issue, you have only addressed a red herring again. Are you going to substantiate your accusation of God's need toward p4t, or are you not going to substantiate it?

Since PY has demonstrated a severe lack of awareness of context, comprehension, logic, and is willing to engage in consistent misrepresentation and diversionary tactics, then I am forced to conclude that this is not a poster worthy of any time investment. I hope that PY actually addresses the issue being raised. If that happens, then I would be glad to continue to engage with profitable discussion. As the discussion now stands, however, this will be my final response.