Featured Dr. Danny Akin’s Article on Calvinism

That's it. Well put.

 

I'm saying in the section you quoted, he is not comparing calvinists with non-cals, he is comparing certain calvinists who deny free will altogether with other calvinists who allow for free will.

 

I agree it is all about his plan, but however it is stated...even a non-cal must reconcile that God desires all men to be saved, but not all are saved. The analogy simply shows one nagging question about this, because if a human parent were to operate on the same plan, then he would not keep his child from heading into certain harm or death. Parents eventually let their children choose their own way, and often it breaks their heart to see them choose a self-destructive path. Even with 2 grown friends, one may physically stop their friend from jumping to a suicidal death, even though their friend wishes to do so.

The difference is human parents & Friends don't have the power to turn people around, and some heart-broken parents will tell you they would do anything to turn thier child around if the could. God Does have that power, but chooses not to use it for some reason.

 

neither, its that the Lord has determined that there will be a remnant selected out by him in order to become His people, saved by the Cross of christ!

Just as in time of jesus, JUST a faithful remnant was kept and saved out of isreal byGgod, in same fashion He saves out a remnant group from sinful humanity to be added to His church!

So will have compassion on whom He will, and He allows others to remain as they were...

For IF God did not intercede in this, ALL would be lost, as none would come toChrist in order to be saved!

 

Does not Job illustrate that God's desire is far more aligned with direct action and not mere wish?

Job 23

1 Then Job answered and said,
2 Even to day is my complaint bitter: my stroke is heavier than my groaning.
3 Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat!
4 I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments.
5 I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me.
6 Will he plead against me with his great power? No; but he would put strength in me.
7 There the righteous might dispute with him; so should I be delivered for ever from my judge.
8 Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him:
9 On the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him: he hides himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him:
10 But he knows the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
11 My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined.
12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.​

One might aligned with Romans and human righteousness of keeping the commandments. This part of Job is showing that there is no ability to find God and plead the case even with the highest degree of human righteousness. Job goes on with describing an element of God's character.

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desires, even that he does.
14 For he performs the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.
15 Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.
16 For God makes my heart soft, and the Almighty troubles me:
17 Because I was not cut off before the darkness, neither hath he covered the darkness from my face. ​

It is important that one recognizes the the thirteenth verse for expressing what form the "desires of God" manifest.

Desire with God is not a longing hoped for human type emotional extension of need or even lust; as expressed by Christ's statement in Mathew 23:37.

Christ said to Jerusalem, "How many times I would have been delighted to gather you together as a Hen gathers her chicks."

But with God, The Father's mere desire is as a command.

Would this then not be applied to the unregenerate and regenerate in that the direct and purposed "desire" of God is NOT that all are saved, and that God loves all mankind; rather just the opposite, God made/makes vessels of honor and dishonor.

 

can't theLord still love sinners in some fashion, yet also being Holy, has to judge them for being sinners who also have rejected jesus?

Wouldn't His hate be more in the line of not loving them same way as His covenant people in relationship with, but still seeing them thru divine wrath and love both?

 

Sure, that is part of the humanity side of Christ. Not every wish and desire of His has the same level of command as that of the Father; therefore, there is a difference in the manifestation of the love in that of The Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Because of the humanity of Christ, and being touched with all that entails, Christ has the type of Love that can say, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me;" yet at the same time, knowing that the Father is determining who will and who will not be given to the Son and submitting honor to the Father.

Here are some other examples of the submission to the Father that shows the Son may desire, but the determining factor is the Father's desire.

Christ states that He will pray to the Father to send another comforter, showing submission in asking of the Father and not merely assuming authority in the matter. John 14:16
Christ, in submission of the Father, said that the Apostles (and by historical evidence the believer) have the ability to seek God's will and authority in matters. One does not have to pray "through Christ" but may petition the very Throne of God themselves as the "joint heir." John 16:26
The great prayer Christ offered in John 17, it is evident that the believer is kept by God the Father because it is the Father that gave the Son all those in whom the Father kept and keeps. This is also applicable to every believer according to John 17:20.​

The father selects and keeps without regard to any human ability and human choosing.
Christ states clearly, "all that the Father gives to me will come to me." (John 6:37)

God is love, but that places no obligation that God must love all. Clearly the Scriptures do not make that declaration, rather it shows that God does love, and God does hate.

Christ by example and because He submits to the Father's will, does love and others he states, "I never knew you."

 

These are good points, but you have conveniently ignored 1 Timothy 2:3-4.:smilewinkgrin:

 

This is a good quote, but look at the context.

1Timothy 2

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. ​

Why, would this matter to Paul?

In my opinion, "respect of persons" was common and Paul was using prayer as one element to show such was not proper. This is my opinion and don't support it with abundant Scriptures for it really doesn't matter to the cause.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Where unto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. ​

Notice that the emphasis remains on prayer.

There are some who would accept that the "God" of verse 3 is the Father. But the verse says "God our Savior" that is Christ and certainly as is His character He desires (expression of longing) "all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." Looking at verse 5 and 6 which also clarifies just who Paul is speaking about - "Christ Jesus..."

These passage does not appoint to the Father any humankind feelings such as the word "desire" (hope, hanker for, set the heart upon...). Such is attuned to Christ who understands and experienced the draw of human desire yet remained submissive to the Father.

I know that I will be in the minority in the interpretation of the passage, and expect the BB to take much pleasure in the task of pointing out error on this; I do consider that the character of God as displayed throughout the OT, does not attain to the level of Abba (loving Papa) accept to believers of the NT who are joint heirs.

God does call some wicked rulers His friend in the OT, but it was in the context of bringing judgment upon Israel for their wickedness. The "friend" is like a mechanic's tool that is useful for a specific purpose and then relegated to the tool box. It doesn't carry any loving attachment.

Other than that, I really haven't found God displayed as a "loving Daddy" except to those who are called by His name.

The NT reading should assume that God is no less than what the OT depicted.

 

Good points:
-Jesus is shown to briefly express a desire that something be different than the father's plan (Garden prayer), but qualifies it with "your will be done." So It is possible that the bible could attribute some emotion or desire to the Son that does not apply to the Father.
-You are correct that the cultural idea that EVERYONE is a child of God is not found in scripture.

Points of contention:
-You automatically assume "God our Savior" in v. 3 is Christ. There is no textual reason to assume this. God is mentioned again in verse 5, definitely referring to the father, making distinction with the Son/Mediator.
-I believe it is dangerous to begin to assign any positive desires that Jesus is expressed to have as being different than the Father's. Jesus "willed" that Jerusalem would come to him, though they did not. It seems a stretch to thing that the Father had no such desire. I begs the question: "Was this Jesus simply expressing some human weakness of emotion? Was it a sinful desire? Was Jesus subject to such desires that were so out of step with the supposed desires of his father?

***Finally, if my above 2 arguments are inadequate: JESUS IS GOD!!! If Jesus desires some thing, it by definition means God desires it! Saying otherwise cheapens one's view of Jesus' divinity. EVEN IF such a desire is shown to be different than the Father's desire (and I'm not convinced it is)....Then it is still unbiblical to look at these verses and conclude the exact opposite of what they say: "God...DOES NOT desire that all men to be saved." You can argue about what kind of desire that is, and why all men are not saved, but denying the clear statement is not an option.

 

So you would agree that His divine Sovereign Election is actually rooted in His Love towards His peoples chosen freely by Him?

So its NOT unfair, nor 'God chosing sides", but actual Act of sovereign Love and grace?

 

have to account in this equation that due to the Incarnation, God in jesus was experiencing and having ;new things", as in full human experiences and knowledge from that perspective!

During this time of Kenosis, self limiting Himself, the Son of God actually had feelings/emotions/experiences unique to Himself amone the trinity!

Always the Three are One in union/purpose, but this is incredible and a mystery on Just How it all plays out!

 

I don't know exactly what you are asking here, or how it relates to my post, but I would agree that "In Love, He predestined us for adoption as sons."

 

In 1 Timothy 2, this was well after time of Kenosis. It was when Jesus was ascended to heaven with God the Father. And remember we have not yet settled that it is ONLY Jesus who is spoken of in v. 3-4.

 

the way that it is constructed and worded, wouldn't clearly be God the Father, as jesus would be the Mediator between Him and us now?

 

Verse 3 does use the qualifier - God our Savior. Verse 5 establishes again for any that might be mistaken that there is one God; that there is a mediator between God and man as a separate business relegated to the Son. That only further signifies the "difference" (so to speak) of the Son (touched by our humanness). Combined with verse 6, Paul is stating there is one God, and then he is stating the mediator Christ and the work Christ accomplishes toward God. Do so by Paul supports the view that is consistent with the OT.

A problem happens when one would consider that different means less. That is just not a true line of reasoning.

Jesus' ability to be experienced with human frailty and weakness of the flesh is not placing him as less than God, but in the capacity of a mediator with first hand experience. He, alone, knows what it is to be fully God and yet fully human. Jesus experienced temptation and testings in all points as any human. God cannot be tempted or tested in such a manor.

One should never consider that Jesus was "less" in that He experienced the "positive desires... expressed as different from the Father's." He expressed negative desires as you pointed out and remained submitted to the desire (will) of the Father, why not the positive ones, too. That is part of his humanity. But again, different does not mean less.

Not at all. Again, I point you to the scene of the Garden prayer that you used as evidential. God did not desire what Jesus in the Garden desired. That did not make Jesus sinful, but reflected the humanity of the word "desire" that God does not manifest.

God has no doubt and no hand wringing hopeful anticipation that humanity enjoys (to use the extreme to prove the point). If God desires to create - it is done. If God desires to bring all Israel back into the land, it is (will) be done. If God desires one saved - that person is saved. Jesus expressed desire that God did not. That is not sinful, but a statement born out in Scriptures.

Another indication of this submission, is when Jesus was a child. He stayed back at Temple and debated with some of the members of the BB. When questioned, He said, "I've got to be about my Father's business." This was showing the desire (will) of the Father; however, Jesus was submissive to the human parental unit and returned home. Here is an example of Jesus expressing His own desire, but also being submissive to God's will of honoring the parental unit, submitted to God's desire (command). Where some would see a conflict, the interplay of "desire" is born out in practical application by the Son.

On the contrary, there is no cheapening but a greater awe that the very God (Abba - papa) can now by extension through the Son, become aware of the weakness of humanity. The Son performs what the Father wills. That is stated by Christ throughout his ministry. He even states to the Apostles, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

It IS Biblical to consider that the desire (hope for, longing) that Christ experientially demonstrated is NOT the same in type as the desire of the Father. I repeat: Different does not mean less. It is clear throughout the OT that the mere "desire" of God manifests as more of an "If / Then" characteristic. In dealing with man God often uses a type of - If you do ..... Then I will do.... But such is not a part of the believer, nor appointed to the Son. The "if / then" statements are clearly mute in favor of the heir relationship to the Father. God deals with the believer through the Son and Spirit.

Here is a short list of how the difference is experientially shown between God and the Son.

God arm is not shortened (weak) nor does He sleep or doze off. Christ became bone weary, and required deep sleep.

God is unaffected by pain and discomfort. Christ suffered often, and didn't even have a pillow to comfort his head.

Christ states, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me."

Is that a true statement? Certainly.

Is it the Father's desire the Son have that draw? Certainly.

Does the Father draw all men unto Him? No. There are spheres of influence and authority in which lines of demarcation establish the "desires" of the Trinity.

It is impossible for the Father to draw all men unto Him; there is no fellowship between Godly Righteousness and unrighteousness. Father is not the Redeemer/mediator, that is the work of the Son.

God "desires" (wills, appoints) salvation. The desire (will) of the Father is performed by the Son mediator through the work of the Holy Spirit (the Word and Spirit); because of the work of the Son, the believers become heirs of God, and then God is called Abba (papa). The validity of the view is also given by Paul in Ephesians 3:14-21. Paul uses an interesting play of wording to describe the final authority of all is in God

"14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He (the Father) would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit (the Father's Spirit) in the inner man,"
​

The next part shows why the Father determines this is necessary.

17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith ; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
​

Be careful reader to remember that the purpose (desire) is granted from God. Christ does the work.

"20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen." ​

Who is the "to Him" part of this passage?

Is it Christ? Some would appoint that view.

Is it the Spirit? Some might suggest that view.

Is it the Father? YES! For verse 21 clearly shows the "to Him" is the ultimate glory given both in the church and Christ.

What does that have to do with "desire"? It shows that difference does not mean less.

Sorry for the long post, and it wanted to rabbit trail, but I think I edited it enough.

Like I said, I consider this a minority view, consistent with the Scriptures, but largely ignored because human kind want a "daddy" not a God.

 

I am thinking that the problem is that you have not clearly established that God did not "desire" what Christ did....Your contention seems based on the idea you posed earlier that "desire" and "will" are more or less synonymous when speaking of God....This seems rather forced to me. You used one passage that I saw earlier do you have another? Christ obviously "desired" for the cup to pass....that does not mean God did not as well.....God did not "desire" for man to sin did he? God's "will" and God's "desire" are not the same thing....Are the two words synonymous? Do those words have the same meaning? In normal situations....no, but your argument is based upon the idea that "will" and "desire" mean one thing in the rest of the real Universe...but that "will" and "desire" mean something completely different only in respect to the Father.....I think a LOT of evidence is required for this, one or two passages from the OT isn't gonna cut it.

You must realize something....to a non-Cal, we are learning from Calvininsts that "world" simply doesn't mean "world", "will" and "desire" (which usually have completely different meanings).....sometimes have the same operative meaning when applied uniquely to a PARTICULAR member of the God-head....and if I understand you correctly...whereas it might mean two different things with respect to Trinity member no. 2.....it nonetheless (at least when the notion supports a Cal POV) often means precisely the same thing with respect to Trinity member no.1.

Do you not see how this might sound contrived?

To date:

World does not mean World
All does not mean All
Will and Desire are sometimes different words....but sometimes.....they mean the same thing (only with respect to certain members of the Trinity)

This is why I often make the statement that "words have meaning" Strikingly, it is usually when I am debating Calvinist Theology.

I cannot speak for 12strings....but I do not think that that is the problem....the problem seems to be the notion that you are posing a divided God-head....divided in desire, divided (in a way) in their nature....divided in personality...divided in the object of affection. Are you posing that Jesus felt a Love towards the lost and a desire to save the lost that the Father did not? (Correct me if I have mis-represented your POV in any way...I do not mean to) A continuous separation between what seems to be the necessity of certain facets of the Divine Justice and Divine Love within the context of the Trinity itself are threatened by your POV (at least as I understand it).