Youth Housing and mandatory Bible studies. | Page 7 | INFJ Forum

Youth Housing and mandatory Bible studies.

[MENTION=6017]wonkavision[/MENTION]

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/desireallsaved.html
[...]
"This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...”1 John 3:23

"God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." Acts 17:30

It is clear, then, that God desires all men to obey His commands whether they are reprobate or not, and this includes the command to believe. (God holds them responsible for not obeying) To say it another way, God desires that all men come to faith. To conclude otherwise would be equivalent to saying that it is God's will for man to sin (since unbelief is a sin), which would be preposterous, of course. In one sense, It would be against His character to will anyone to do anything but obey His commands. Yet in another sense, it is within His will because He allows it within the framework of His providence. If God commands all men everywhere to repent and His commandment is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then there is no other possible conclusion than to say God desires all men, elect and reprobate, to obey His commands, including the command to believe the gospel. In this way, God desires all men to be saved in the same way He desires all men to obey His commands. As I mentioned, this desire (or will) is not His "will of decree" but His "revealed will" (commanded will). The “will of decree” (or secret will) always infallibly comes to pass but His “revealed will” or His commands, although according to His desire, do not infallibly come to pass, as is obvious from the fact that we are all sinners. It is true, God came to save "His people" from their sins, and them only, but the text in 1 Tim 2: 3, 4 & 2 Peter 3:8-9 does not seem to be speaking of this concept (i.e. those the Father has given the Son). It, rather, appears to be referring to God's "revealed will" or what He commands in Scripture to all men (like Thou shalt not kill, etc.). And, from this, it is obvious that God's revealed will does not always come to fruition. In fact, each time we sin we set ourselves against what God revealed will.

So we find that God allows things to happen that He would prefer not to happen. This is referred to by theologians as His permissive (revealed) will. The Scriptures distinguish between God's secret will, embodied in his counsel of foreordination, and God's revealed will, embodied in his law. The two are often denominated God's decretive will and his preceptive will. It is by His decretive will that "He sovereignly brings to pass whatever He decrees, while His permissive will leaves room for the moral actions of His creatures." (R.C Sproul in The Invisible Hand). So we can argue that God's revealed will is an infallible guide for the life of his Church. But his secret will is not meant to be a guide at all. God's Providential hand is simply seen by us as the gradual unfolding of God's secret will. It should be clear to us then that it cannot serve as a guide for our moral behavior nor as a way to postulate who wil be saved. It might be better for the sake of understanding to differentiate these wills as God's commands and his decrees. Man is held accountable for his disobedience to God's commands (revealed will), not God's decrees. His revealed will in his law is for us and is not meant to give us a glimpse into what He plans to do with His secret will.

Deuteronomy 29:29 makes it is clear there are at least two types of wills in God. It says,

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever"

The great theologian Jonathan Edwards explained,

"Though He hates sin in itself, yet He may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though He has no inclination to a creature's misery [He desires none perish], considered absolutely, yet He may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality." ("Concerning the Divine Decrees," The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), pp. 527-28.)
[...]
Click to expand...
 
Matt3737 said:
[MENTION=6017]wonkavision[/MENTION]

I just want to say to you, personally, that I have a lot of respect and admiration for the teachings of the Bible and how it expresses those teachings.

Your style of proselytizing is completely abhorrent and disgusting on the other hand. No matter how correct you think you are or how correct you are in actuality. You, personally, disgust me.

Lord have mercy on your soul. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Read what the Scriptures actually say. ill bet youll find it equally abhorrent.
 
wonkavision said:
Allow me to put that more concisely and more Biblically accurate:


Proverbs 16:4

"The*Lord*hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Click to expand...

Expound, please. How is this relevant?
 
wonkavision said:
the apostles never even remotely suggested that christ was a failure, so i suggest you read them again.

The word "remnant" and "elect" or "election" is used at least 33 times in reference to Gods people.

just read Romans 9 for starters, its clear that God never intended to save EVERYONE.

Honestly, you have no real knowledge of the Scriptures. Its at about the level of Veggie Tales.

Telling people that God loves them when the wrath of God is hanging over them is like if Noah had put a sign on the back of the ark that said, "SMILE. God LOVES you."
Click to expand...

Do you know who Paul is talking about in Rom 9, it's the nation of Israel, both in their (at the time of the writing) modern and historical context. The Jews had throughout the bible relied on their nationality(as God's chosen people) and the law for their righteousness and Now Paul is flipping their world upside down telling God in his sovereignty has chosen a new people, which they weren't inherently a part of. the Jews of course don't like this idea, they complain that the word of God(God's Covenant and Law) has failed. Paul responds that God is sovereign that it is his choice to whom are his people(and Backs it up with old testament scripture), at first it was Jews but now it's anybody who will accept the Jesus as savior and Lord.

And when read in that Context, John's Letters and his gospel seems to mesh perfectly with what Paul has to say in Romans.

But I don't have to really say any of that to get the point across, the reason I use what John has to say is because every single person on this forum can read that John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 say in no uncertain language that Jesus Died for all, that God loves everyone. If you believe that scripture is inerrant, which I'm guessing you do, then you have to reconcile your theology with those passages.
 
sprinkles said:
Expound, please. How is this relevant?
Click to expand...

That quote you posted is the typical wranglings of the blind leading the blind.

the so-called "theologians" who divide up God's will into different categories are too spiritually blind to see that God' will is God's will.

or else theyre too cowardly to tell people the truth--that God doesnt just ALLOW evil, CREATED it for his purposes.

thus, the quote from Proverbs 16:4

"The*Lord*hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
*
And my point is that when God sends someone to hell, its because he sovereignly DECREED that he would leave them in their sins.
just as he sovereignly DECREES that he'll have MERCY on others.

my point is that WHATEVER comes to pass is GOD's sovereign will. PERIOD.

theres no need to be COY about it. GOD has MERCY on whom he'll have merc, and HARDENS whom he will harden.

that us hs RIGHT as God.

either BOW to him as God, or be CONDEMNED by him as God.

either way God is righteous and just when he judges sin.
 
Last edited:
wonkavision said:
That quote you posted is the typical wranglings of the blind leading the blind.

the so-called "theologians" who divide up God's will into different categories are too spiritually blind to see that God' will is God's will.

or else theyre too cowardly to tell people the truth--that God doent just ALLOW evil, CREATED it for his purposes.

thus, the quote from Proverbs 16:4

"The*Lord*hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
*
Click to expand...

That doesn't help.

Expound on the verse please, and explain how it refutes what I've posted.

I am genuinely asking you to do so because I want to understand it, and you. You want to spread the Gospel right? This is your chance to do so. I am listening.
 
Barnabas said:
Do you know who Paul is talking about in Rom 9, it's the nation of Israel, both in their (at the time of the writing) modern and historical context. The Jews had throughout the bible relied on their nationality(as God's chosen people) and the law for their righteousness and Now Paul is flipping their world upside down telling God in his sovereignty has chosen a new people, which they weren't inherently a part of. the Jews of course don't like this idea, they complain that the word of God(God's Covenant and Law) has failed. Paul responds that God is sovereign that it is his choice to whom are his people(and Backs it up with old testament scripture), at first it was Jews but now it's anybody who will accept the Jesus as savior and Lord.

And when read in that Context, John's Letters and his gospel seems to mesh perfectly with what Paul has to say in Romans.

But I don't have to really say any of that to get the point across, the reason I use what John has to say is because every single person on this forum can read that John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 say in no uncertain language that Jesus Died for all, that God loves everyone. If you believe that scripture is inerrant, which I'm guessing you do, then you have to reconcile your theology with those passages.
Click to expand...



Well it will all be crystal clear at the bar of God, when he separates the sheep from the goats.

until then, be warned:

false prophets and false believers will all be condemned. but all those for whom Christ died will dwell with him.
 
sprinkles said:
That doesn't help.

Expound on the verse please, and explain how it refutes what I've posted.

I am genuinely asking you to do so because I want to understand it, and you. You want to spread the Gospel right? This is your chance to do so. I am listening.
Click to expand...

Im not sure what youre looking for.

But if its not clear by now, im not into debating non-essentials.

preaching the gospel is about one simple message: how God can be JUST and yet JUSTIFY a SINNER --through the blood of Jesus Christ, on the cross.

if you want to DISCUSS theology, Barnabas might be game.

But i have no desire to play around. End of story.
 
wonkavision said:
Well it will all be crystal clear at the bar of God, when he separates the sheep from the goats.

until then, be warned:

false prophets and false believers will all be condemned. but all those for whom Christ died will dwell with him.
Click to expand...

Which loops back 1 john 4 "13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit.14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us."


 
wonkavision said:
Im not sure what youre looking for.

But if its not clear by now, im not into debating non-essentials.

preaching the gospel is about one simple message: how God can be JUST and yet JUSTIFY a SINNER --through the blood of Jesus Christ, on the cross.

if you want to DISCUSS theology, Barnabas might be game.

But i have no desire to play around. End of story.
Click to expand...

I don't want to debate. I would like you to explain.

In fact, I present some terms: while you are explaining to me I will not argue with you over the explanation. I will also not argue with you about what you have explained after you are done.
However I am allowed to ask some questions about the possible explanation, to better understand it.

My arguing with you specifically is not that important to me, at this point I just want to hear what you have to say. I want to let you speak. Do you agree?
 
@ Sprinkles

Like i said, i'm not sure what youre looking for.

maybe if you ask a specific question i'll answer it.

but unless you want to know how a sinner can be saved, i probably wont take the time to respond.

just fair warning.
 
wonkavision said:
Like i said. im not sure what youre looking for.

maybe if you ask a specific question i'll answer it.

but unless you want to know how a sinner can be saved, i probably wont take the time to respond.

just fair warning.
Click to expand...

The question was asked: how does that verse refute what I've posted?

Or in other words, what train of logic or reasoning leads from the premise that God created the wicked, to the conclusion that God doesn't want all to be saved, since God commands all?

I don't understand how the two are mutually exclusive.
 
sprinkles said:
The question was asked: how does that verse refute what I've posted?

Or in other words, what train of logic or reasoning leads from the premise that God created the wicked, to the conclusion that God doesn't want all to be saved, since God commands all?

I don't understand how the two are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

i didnt say they were mutually exclusive. i said it wasnt entirely correct.

apparently you didnt real my whole response.

in any case, this seems to be pretty fruitless.

its almost 3 am and im tired.

i doubt i will make the effort to comment any further. so i suggest you just let the issue go.

as i said before, you are dangling over Hell and wasting time on non-essentials.

and i certainly dont want to be an accomplice.

if you want to hear the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, then let me know. ill be glad to fill you in.

but if you want to philosophize, or play games with the Holy Scriptures, i suggest you play with Barnabas. his approach is more conducive to playing games.
 
wonkavision said:
i didnt say they were mutually exclusive. i said it wasnt entirely correct.

apparently you didnt real my whole response.

in any case, this seems to be pretty fruitless.

its almost 3 am and im tired.

i doubt i will make the effort to comment any further. so i suggest you just let the issue go.

as i said before, you are dangling over Hell and wasting time on non-essentials.

and i certainly dont want to be an accomplice.

if you want to hear the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, then let me know. ill be glad to fill you in.

but if you want to philosophize, or play games with the Holy Scriptures, i suggest you play with Barnabas. his approach is more conducive to playing games.
Click to expand...

Oh. So that's what you really meant? Are you entirely sure?

Very well then, no matter,

This also isn't a game though. This is very polite warfare.
 
Now that our polite war is over, does anybody else have any questions about Grace Landing, blind bandit obviously has some issues with the idea of Charity as used as a platform for evangelism. which brings up interesting ideas about to discuss about the possibility of ulterior motives in Charity organizations. Personally I don't think Grace Landing is being used as grounds for evangelism mostly because they a right poor job of it. I'm more inclined to think that because the organization is Christian based they believe that going to church and attending said bible studies helps promote the guys at to a more independent life.
 
wonkavision said:
That quote you posted is the typical wranglings of the blind leading the blind.

the so-called "theologians" who divide up God's will into different categories are too spiritually blind to see that God' will is God's will.

or else theyre too cowardly to tell people the truth--that God doesnt just ALLOW evil, CREATED it for his purposes.

thus, the quote from Proverbs 16:4

"The*Lord*hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
*
And my point is that when God sends someone to hell, its because he sovereignly DECREED that he would leave them in their sins.
just as he sovereignly DECREES that he'll have MERCY on others.

my point is that WHATEVER comes to pass is GOD's sovereign will. PERIOD.

theres no need to be COY about it. GOD has MERCY on whom he'll have merc, and HARDENS whom he will harden.

that us hs RIGHT as God.

either BOW to him as God, or be CONDEMNED by him as God.

either way God is righteous and just when he judges sin.
Click to expand...

The wicked are differentiated from the just according to absence of moral justice, where moral justice is possible.

Wickedness is not something, but rather the absence of the justice.

Absence is non-existence. And since God is the cause of existence, from non-existence. Therefore God is not the cause of wickedness.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
The wicked are differentiated from the just according to absence of moral justice, where moral justice is possible.

Wickedness is not something, but rather the absence of the justice.

Absence is non-existence. And since God is the cause of existence, from non-existence. Therefore God is not the cause of wickedness.
Click to expand...

There's a logical problem with this, because if justice is not also an absence of wickedness then one can be just and also wicked, which contradicts this definition of wickedness, and if justice is the absence of wickedness then justice is also not something.
 
sprinkles said:
There's a logical problem with this, because if justice is not also an absence of wickedness then one can be just and also wicked, which contradicts this definition of wickedness, and if justice is the absence of wickedness then justice is also not something.
Click to expand...

Justice is active - it is something which is subject to negligence. Injustice is usually a negligence of obligation.

So I don't think they are simply relative.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Justice is active - it is something which is subject to negligence. Injustice is usually a negligence of obligation.

So I don't think they are simply relative.
Click to expand...

One can be actively and willfully negligent. A bivalent state can be described with the negation of its opposite.

i.e.
absent = not present
present = not absent

The antonym of negligence is care, or heedfulness
negligent = not heedful
heedful = not negligent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back