dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you can point me to a certain section I will try to do so.

I am not disputing that the argument isn't real, but just because someone argues or makes a case doesn't necessarily mean anything. If that is the outcome of the argument, it is 100% rejected. God is not the author of sin.

---

It is his third point in the attached link. The whole link is really not that long if you have the time.

---

Chapter 6 or Chapter 4?

Quote:

---

When Christians divorce their spouses, refuse to forgive, are self-centered, give into temptation, bring shame on the Gospel, and abuse their wives or children, then the explanation must be that in these instances God has withheld the grace enabling obedience to the moral exhortations of Scripture because he wanted these sins to be committed.

---

Speaking of this specific example, this is a direct violation of God's commands and it is in no way directed by God. The Bible is clear on this topic and I would argue tradition also would not appeal to the sinner in this example. The amazing thing is that he will use our bad decisions for the ultimate good of those whom love him. Romans 8:28

Quote:

---

As Williams and Peterson put it, "God sovereignly directs and ordains…our sinful acts as well as the good that we do."

---

God allows certain things and also does not allow other things. He is governing and overseeing the world. That doesn't mean he is controlling robots. In other words, while I would affirm there is this theme of total depravity, there is also limited depravity, in that God doesn't allow people to be as bad as they ultimately could be. Praise God for that.

Quote:

---

Most Christians who consider themselves "evangelical" are indifferent to the fact that two mutually exclusive soteriologies Calvinist and non-Calvinist are being taught in their churches.

---

Sorry but there are way more than two. One of the biggest issues in the faith is how it has evolved into so many different gospels.

End of the day, the true gospel is laid out in the Nicene Creed pretty plainly. I imagine we both agree with that.

I read the provided link for a while and not once was a scripture reference brought up.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Quote:

---

William Lane Craig and I believe the Reformed/Calvinist belief that God intentionally creates human beings in His image with no chance to avoid eternal torment attributes sin and evil to God.

---

This is not a Reformed belief. It is a conclusion others draw when it comes to the Reformed belief of God's sovereignty in salvation. Admittedly, it is a logical conclusion, but that doesn't mean it must be true. I believe that God is sovereign and yet man is still responsible. That's just one item on a long list of things about God that I don't/can't understand.

---

Do not Reformed/calvinists believe that God creates human beings who are pre ordained to eternal torment? With no chance of salvation?

That is what I glean from my reading.

And how is man responsible with the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace? Or do you not agree with those?

That is why Craig uses the term "incomprehensible" to describe Calvinism. It logically makes no sense and, as Craig states, does not align with Scripture when Scripture is taken as a whole.

And that is the disconnect. I read Reformed/Calvinist theology and then ask my Reformed acquaintances about the theology and they say that is not Reformed theology.

Seriously, I do not get it.

---

I believe it is only the Hyper-Calvinist that says God creates people with no chance of salvation. I think Scripture is abundantly clear that salvation is offered to all men.

---

From my understanding, Reformed/Calvinist belief is emphatic that salvation is not offered to all men. Only the elect. That is the basis of their soteriology.

And I agree with you that Scripture is clear salvation is offered to all men.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Quote:

---

William Lane Craig and I believe the Reformed/Calvinist belief that God intentionally creates human beings in His image with no chance to avoid eternal torment attributes sin and evil to God.

---

This is not a Reformed belief. It is a conclusion others draw when it comes to the Reformed belief of God's sovereignty in salvation. Admittedly, it is a logical conclusion, but that doesn't mean it must be true. I believe that God is sovereign and yet man is still responsible. That's just one item on a long list of things about God that I don't/can't understand.

---

Do not Reformed/calvinists believe that God creates human beings who are pre ordained to eternal torment? With no chance of salvation?

That is what I glean from my reading.

And how is man responsible with the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace? Or do you not agree with those?

That is why Craig uses the term "incomprehensible" to describe Calvinism. It logically makes no sense and, as Craig states, does not align with Scripture when Scripture is taken as a whole.

And that is the disconnect. I read Reformed/Calvinist theology and then ask my Reformed acquaintances about the theology and they say that is not Reformed theology.

Seriously, I do not get it.

---

I believe it is only the Hyper-Calvinist that says God creates people with no chance of salvation. I think Scripture is abundantly clear that salvation is offered to all men.

---

From my understanding, Reformed/Calvinist belief is emphatic that salvation is not offered to all men. Only the elect. That is the basis of their soteriology.

And I agree with you that Scripture is clear salvation is offered to all men.

---

I think you are correct. Isn't the "L" in TULIP for limited atonement?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Quote:

---

William Lane Craig and I believe the Reformed/Calvinist belief that God intentionally creates human beings in His image with no chance to avoid eternal torment attributes sin and evil to God.

---

This is not a Reformed belief. It is a conclusion others draw when it comes to the Reformed belief of God's sovereignty in salvation. Admittedly, it is a logical conclusion, but that doesn't mean it must be true. I believe that God is sovereign and yet man is still responsible. That's just one item on a long list of things about God that I don't/can't understand.

---

Do not Reformed/calvinists believe that God creates human beings who are pre ordained to eternal torment? With no chance of salvation?

That is what I glean from my reading.

And how is man responsible with the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace? Or do you not agree with those?

That is why Craig uses the term "incomprehensible" to describe Calvinism. It logically makes no sense and, as Craig states, does not align with Scripture when Scripture is taken as a whole.

And that is the disconnect. I read Reformed/Calvinist theology and then ask my Reformed acquaintances about the theology and they say that is not Reformed theology.

Seriously, I do not get it.

---

I believe it is only the Hyper-Calvinist that says God creates people with no chance of salvation. I think Scripture is abundantly clear that salvation is offered to all men.

---

From my understanding, Reformed/Calvinist belief is emphatic that salvation is not offered to all men. Only the elect. That is the basis of their soteriology.

And I agree with you that Scripture is clear salvation is offered to all men.

---

I think you are correct. Isn't the "L" in TULIP for limited atonement?

---

Yes. And I think that is not Biblical.

If Christ died for even the most unrepentant sinner, that would mean his sacrifice was not sufficient to save all and was absolutely done in vain. To have Christ going through the misery he did as a man and on the cross, and for it to be ultimately rejected? Reformers would obviously reject that notion. Christ's sacrifice was all sufficient and complete for God's ultimate glory. This gives the picture that Christ died and just crossed his fingers that all would take advantage of his atoning death.

FWIW, I like Sproul's (it may not be coined by him but he uses in his teaching) re-purposed descriptor of "Definite Redemption."

Quote:

---

"God is not willing that any should perish." This is a specific reference to the will of God. In the New Testament, there are two Greek words that can be translated into English by the word will. Unfortunately, each of these words is capable of several different nuances. So, when you're asking specifically what kind of willing is in view, you can't settle the question simply by looking up the Greek text and looking at a Greek lexicon to find the meaning.

There are six or seven different ways in which the Bible speaks about God's will or His willingness. For purposes of time, let me just take a few minutes to look at the three most frequent ways in which the Bible speaks of the will of God.

The Decretive Will
The first way the Bible speaks of the will of God is in terms of the decretive will of God. Some people call it the "sovereign efficacious will" of God; others call it the "ultimate will" of God.

This meaning for will has to do with that will of God by which God sovereignly brings to pass whatsoever He chooses to do. When God wills the world to come into existence, His willing of it makes it so. It is a sovereign decree that must come to pass. It can't not come to pass, and it cannot be frustrated by any outside force. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about the sovereign decretive will.

Now, let's suppose 2 Peter 3:9 is using this meaning or nuance for the will of God. What would it mean that God is not "willing" that any should perish? If the "any" refers to "any person," and if we translate it to mean that God decrees that no human being will perish, what would be the obvious conclusion? If God sovereignly decrees that no human person would ever perish, then manifestly no human person would ever perish, and this text would become the classical proof text for universalism.

But again, the debate about the text is not between particularists and universalists; it's between parties who both affirm particularism, that not everybody is saved. So then, we look to other possible nuances for the word "willing."

The Preceptive Will
The second most frequent way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is what we call the preceptive will of God.

A precept is a law or a command. The preceptive will of God refers to the commands that God gives to people. The Ten Commandments would be an expression of the preceptive will of God. When God says, "Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me," and so on, He's setting forth His law. We cannot disobey the preceptive will of God with impunity, but we do have the power and the ability to break this law. So, there is a sense in which the preceptive will does not always come to pass because people don't always obey it.

Now let's apply this possible meaning to this text, that God is not willing in the preceptive sense that any should perish, meaning He doesn't allow or give His sanction or His moral permission to people when they perish. There's a sense in which that's true. Since He commands all people to come to Christ, the failure to obey that command would be to violate His preceptive will.

I would say that is a possible interpretation of this text, and there are reputable theologians who assume this meaning of "willingness" to this particular verse. I personally think it's somewhat awkward and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say, "You're not allowed to perish." And I don't think that's in the context. With the context, it seems all the more awkward.

The Will of Disposition
The third way in which the term will is used biblically with respect to God is what we call His will of disposition.

This is one of those anthropomorphic expressions that talk about the emotions of God, what pleases God, what causes God to be delighted, what causes God to grieve, and so on. We're told elsewhere in Scripture, for example, that God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). He doesn't get some great personal thrill out of sending people to hell, even though He wills to do it, just as a judge in the court may be required to send his own son to a life term in prison for the sake of maintaining justice. He would do it because it was the right thing to do, but he would do it with tears. He wouldn't get any personal pleasure out of it other than the pleasure that justice is being maintained.

In the case of 2 Peter 3:9, the "willing" would be a reflection of God's disposition. As the Bible says elsewhere, He takes no delight in the death of the wicked. This would mean that God is not willing in a dispositional sense that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance.

So, those are the three basic ways in which word willing can be used in Scripture. For me, finding which of these is most appropriate in 2 Peter 3:9 will be determined by the reference to the second questionable word, the word "any." If Peter is talking about "any" as referring to all human beings in this world, then I would come to the conclusion that it could only mean the dispositional will of God. But I don't think he is talking about "any" in this absolutely unrestricted sense.

---

Quote:

---

Any What?

Any time we use the word any, we're assuming some referenceany what? Any of which group? Peter doesn't say that God is not willing that any "person" perish. We would have to supply that "person" as if it were tacitly understood. But is there any other possible reference to the "any" besides "any human being"?

There are other possibilities, not the least of which is a particular class. I'll draw a circle here on the board and put the word people inside of it. If the word people makes up a distinctive class, then if I said, "Any of that class," I would mean, "Any person." Or I could have another class, a class called "Jews." And if I spoke of that class, it would refer to anyone who is Jewish. I could do the same thing with Americans or any other group I could incorporate within that circle.

I think that Peter is talking about a group that is mentioned frequently in his epistle by the designation "elect." Certainly, the Bible speaks frequently of the elect, and the elect make up a distinctive group. The question is this: Is Peter speaking about people? Is he speaking of the body of disciples of which Peter is a member? Or is he speaking of the whole number of the elect?

We remember in John's gospel when Jesus mentions that none of those whom the Father has given Him will perish (John 10:2729) and that they will all come to faith (John 6:37) so that everybody in that group of the elect is certainly going to be redeemed.

Peter is not specific about the group to which he's referring with the word "any," but he's not utterly silent. If we look back at the text carefully, we read this in verse 9 of chapter 3: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering," toward whom? "He is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Grammatically, the immediate antecedent of the word "any" is the word "us." I think it's perfectly clear that Peter is saying, "God is not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to salvation."

We're still not finished with the problem because now we have to ask, Who is the "us"? In the broader context of his epistle, I don't think he's speaking of all mankind indiscriminately. Rather, the "us" or the "we" is a reference to the believers to whom Peter is speaking, believers in Jesus Christ.

---

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology/limited-atonement?srsltid=AfmBOopv6D3KQhWzgOmoiaI-aPB7LK9aLa6z4ZN5G8IDj8nZ_WwokJRd

Quote:

---

If Christ died for even the most unrepentant sinner, that would mean his sacrifice was not sufficient to save all and was absolutely done in vain

---

No it doesn't.

Hypothetical. A man in trouble is approached by a stranger, who says "Hey man, how much money do you need for your mortgage to keep from foreclosure? $2000? Ok, I will give that to you no strings attached." The man in trouble spends it on hookers and blow, and then blames the generous man for it and hates him.

Was the gift insufficient? Who is to blame?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If Christ died for even the most unrepentant sinner, that would mean his sacrifice was not sufficient to save all and was absolutely done in vain.

---

I don't think that's true. It might be true depending on your concept of free will and grace, but in the classic understanding of free will and grace, that statement seems incorrect on its face.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If Christ died for even the most unrepentant sinner, that would mean his sacrifice was not sufficient to save all and was absolutely done in vain.

---

I don't think that's true. It might be true depending on your concept of free will and grace, but in the classic understanding of free will and grace, that statement seems incorrect on its face.

---

Agree. I actually think that contradicts Scripture. I believe Christ did die for all men.

And I can not think of any Scripture that says Christ did not die for all men.

The gift was given in vain if it wasn't used for the intended purpose. And it did not sufficiently pay off his mortgage because the problem was still there. The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly. It would have taken merit on behalf of the bum to have a gift and know what exactly he should do with it.

Otherwise it is entirely possible that Christ could have theoretically died for nobody if everyone ended up rejecting him.

you didn't answer the question, but it sounds like you're saying that the generous man was to blame. does that seem right to you?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The gift was given in vain if it wasn't used for the intended purpose. And it did not sufficiently pay off his mortgage because the problem was still there. The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly. It would have taken merit on behalf of the bum to have a gift and know what exactly he should do with it.

Otherwise it is entirely possible that Christ could have theoretically died for nobody if everyone ended up rejecting him.

---

I hear your last sentence from Reformed/Calvinists frequently and to me it is a non starter. God knew not everyone would reject Christ. But he gave/gives everyone a chance to accept or reject Christ's sacrifice.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The gift was given in vain if it wasn't used for the intended purpose. And it did not sufficiently pay off his mortgage because the problem was still there. The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly. It would have taken merit on behalf of the bum to have a gift and know what exactly he should do with it.

Otherwise it is entirely possible that Christ could have theoretically died for nobody if everyone ended up rejecting him.

---

God knew not everyone would reject Christ.

---

How do you know what God knows?

Zobel said:

---

you didn't answer the question, but it sounds like you're saying that the generous man was to blame. does that seem right to you?

---

I think its the old adage of don't give a drunk a drink, and it all ties back to foundational things.

You are assuming this completely strung out person who apparently has no ability to manage money is given a gift and somehow all the sudden has new revelation on how to live his life?

No different than the irresistible grace sinners need in order to receive their calling.

1 Timothy 4 10
Who is the Savior of ALL men, especially those who believe.

2 Corinthians 5 14-15
And he died for ALL, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him that died for them and was raised again.

Romans 6 10
The death He died, He died to sin once for ALL

John 3 16-17

For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the WORLD might be saved through Him.

Just a few verses saying Christ died for all.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The gift was given in vain if it wasn't used for the intended purpose. And it did not sufficiently pay off his mortgage because the problem was still there. The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly. It would have taken merit on behalf of the bum to have a gift and know what exactly he should do with it.

Otherwise it is entirely possible that Christ could have theoretically died for nobody if everyone ended up rejecting him.

---

God knew not everyone would reject Christ.

---

How do you know what God knows?

---

I don't. And neither do you.

But I can read the totality of Scripture and look at church tradition and get an idea.

And can you post a Scripture that states Christ did not die for all?

you still didn't answer the question. is the generous man to blame in that scenario?

BTW that snippet from Sproul's teaching is about the best I can find as far as scratching that itch for you and the question you bring forth many times. Not saying it is necessarily saying anything new, but lays out a fairly easy to understand argument.

Zobel said:

---

you still didn't answer the question. is the generous man to blame in that scenario?

---

I would say so, since his past life has obviously crippled him to the point he doesn't have the ability to receive a good gift.

Edit - I misread here. The generous man is not to blame. The recipient is.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

you still didn't answer the question. is the generous man to blame in that scenario?

---

I would say so, since his past life has obviously crippled him to the point he doesn't have the ability to receive a good gift.

---

I appreciate the example, because for me it further illuminates the fact that in our sinful state separated from God, we need his intervention to regenerate our hearts so we can in fact receive Christ and his gift. No different that someone who abuses money and is repeatedly given monetary gifts and blows them all. He doesn't know how to receive and use the gift.

You see that this also makes God to blame for anyone who is not saved?

Yes absolutely. We are all deserving eternal punishment.

Edit - didn't read your comment above correctly. No God is not to blame, we are.

The generous man is not to blame, the recipient is still to blame.

you see that you have completely flip-flopped, right?

Explain?

In your analogy, the recipient obviously can accept or reject the money, correct?

you started by listing what the giver should have done

Quote:

---

The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly.

---

Quote:

---

You are assuming this completely strung out person who apparently has no ability to manage money is given a gift and somehow all the sudden has new revelation on how to live his life?

---

but then you say

Quote:

---

The generous man is not to blame. The recipient is.

---

this is objectively false. if (as you say) the recipient is incapable, then the responsibility is entirely on the generous man. you say even a truly good gift is not good if the recipient is incapable of receiving it - the gift giver should do more until the gift is received.

but this puts the responsibility on the generous man, and no responsibility on the troubled man.

even more! it shows clearly that the generous man is not only responsible for the troubled man he gave a gift too, but even more responsible for the ones who he did not give anything to.

This makes God sole cause of salvation, and damnation. A person who has no agency can have no responsibility.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

BTW that snippet from Sproul's teaching is about the best I can find as far as scratching that itch for you and the question you bring forth many times. Not saying it is necessarily saying anything new, but lays out a fairly easy to understand argument.

---

It sure seems like he is creating a way to make simple, straightforward Scripture fit his theology. Way too many words for a simple statement.

Zobel said:

---

you started by listing what the giver should have done

Quote:

---

The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly.

---

Quote:

---

You are assuming this completely strung out person who apparently has no ability to manage money is given a gift and somehow all the sudden has new revelation on how to live his life?

---

but then you say

Quote:

---

The generous man is not to blame. The recipient is.

---

this is objectively false. if (as you say) the recipient is incapable, then the responsibility is entirely on the generous man. you say even a truly good gift is not good if the recipient is incapable of receiving it - the gift giver should do more until the gift is received.

but this puts the responsibility on the generous man, and no responsibility on the troubled man.

even more! it shows clearly that the generous man is not only responsible for the troubled man he gave a gift too, but even more responsible for the ones who he did not give anything to.

This makes God sole cause of salvation, and damnation. A person who has no agency can have no responsibility.

---

Great post.

Can he literally take the money itself and blow it on hookers? Sure.
Can he actually take the gift as intended to credit his account that is about to be foreclosed on? No.

But even so the point remains. Say the generous man does ignore the agency of the troubled man. He pays his house off completely. He checks the troubled man into rehab. He even gets power of attorney over the troubled man's whole life, and runs his whole life for him. In the end, in spite of it all, the troubled man hates the generous man even more. He rebels and runs away and overdoses and dies, cursing the generous man for ruining his life.

Was it insufficient? Who is to blame?

1 John 2 2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Titus 2 11
For the grace of Hod has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, especially those who believe.

More Scripture to support unlimited atonement.

Still waiting for Scripture that say Christ did noo op t die for all mankind.

Even more. The generous man does all of those things, but knows the troubled man will eventually escape. In the rehab clinic, he sedates him, locks him up, has guards posted, completely removes the troubled man's abilities knowing that because that man hates him he will eventually escape and relapse. The troubled man never relapses, but dies hating the generous man.

Is this love?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Can he literally take the money itself and blow it on hookers? Sure.
Can he actually take the gift as intended to credit his account that is about to be foreclosed on? No.

---

I am confused. Why can he not accept the gift as given for the right purpose?

Zobel said:

---

you started by listing what the giver should have done

Quote:

---

The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly.

---

Quote:

---

You are assuming this completely strung out person who apparently has no ability to manage money is given a gift and somehow all the sudden has new revelation on how to live his life?

---

but then you say

Quote:

---

The generous man is not to blame. The recipient is.

---

this is objectively false. if (as you say) the recipient is incapable, then the responsibility is entirely on the generous man. you say even a truly good gift is not good if the recipient is incapable of receiving it - the gift giver should do more until the gift is received.

but this puts the responsibility on the generous man, and no responsibility on the troubled man.

even more! it shows clearly that the generous man is not only responsible for the troubled man he gave a gift too, but even more responsible for the ones who he did not give anything to.

This makes God sole cause of salvation, and damnation. A person who has no agency can have no responsibility.

---

I reject the idea that the giver is responsible for the recipient's condition. The troubled man's own actions had put him in a situation in which he cannot accept that gift. The giver didn't contribute to the troubled man's downfall.

For the ones he did not give a gift to, that would no longer even make it a gift. It would be more of a debt, if it was something that was required to be given to everyone.

Yes, God is the sole cause of salvation, but no, God did not cause man to sin so that they could not receive his gift. So yes, man is still responsible.