Are there two wills in God?

[John81]

Are these articles online somewhere? Really, I don't care what Calvin said or what Arminius said or whatever. I only care about the truth, and I will consider any valid challenge to my faith. I am not afraid of it being tested, so if someone recommends I read something that they believe makes a good argument for my faith or against my faith, I will gladly do so when I have the time. Unfortunately, from my experience, anti-Calvinists will not do so. It's as if they are afraid to read what the opposing view puts forth. I don't understand. Why? And should they ever read it, they just get very angry and defensive, but never address the point that the article put forth brings up. That only convinces me further that my position is prOBably the correct one. The attitude says more than the arguments do.

I don't know if they have this available on their website or not. Dr. Smith and Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh are working on a book on this subject that at least some of this will prOBably be in when they get it finished.

[heartstrings]

Can anybody else read the whole thread and attest to this? I don't see it for some reason...

I wasn't speaking of this thread; we have discussed Calvinism in several threads.
Here's a thread where I answered you personally and told you that God was in control....4th post down on the page...

[anime4christ]

I wasn't speaking of this thread; we have discussed Calvinism in several threads.
Here's a thread where I answered you personally and told you that God was in control....4th post down on the page...

That explanation didn't really explain much, IMHO, but it is going off topic anyway. The point of this thread was to explain how I reconcile the passages which talk about God's will that shall stand no matter what humans do and the passages which make it clear that people go against God's will for them (law). The explanation is that there are two wills of God. You don't have to be a Calvinist to see that in the scriptures. So, this thread is not necessarily about Calvinism, but about a consistent view of scripture, because scripture is consistent and one verse does not destroy another. The prOBlem is that to come to your theology, you must discard some passages because you cannot consistently reconcile them while trying to find the presuppositions you have in your mind in the Bible.

[anime4christ]

For those interested, the Sword of the Lord is running a series of articles, beginning with the current issue (September 3, 2010) entitled "The Case Against Calvinism!" by Dr. Shelton Smith.

I've read the fist installment and it would be good for Calvinists and anti-Calvinists to read. Much of the article is put together well but one section has several poor, unneeded and unhelpful sentences.

There are a couple points in the article which seems to somewhat contradict one another. I think this is because Dr. Smith uses material from Dr. John R. Rice and Dr. Curtis Hutson and these two didn't approach the topic from the same basis.

In any event, I'm looking forward to how this series develops and stands as a whole.

I tried searching for it and they have an online example, but it doesn't have the articles you mentioned though it has some things to say against Calvinism in the sample.

From Wikipedia: "Although the paper is militantly anti-Calvinist, an exception is made for edited sermons of C. H. Spurgeon.[4]

4. In 1950, John R. Rice wrote of his editing practices, "If there are paragraphs which are not acceptable doctrinally, I indicate that they are to be left out." The Sword of the Lord, (September 22, 1950), 1. A scholarly study by Howard Moore discovered that Rice had deleted passages in many sermons, including those of Charles Finney, Talmage, and even Jonathan Edwards', "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." But, said Moore, "No other ancient worthy seems to have suffered as much from Rice's editorial license...as Charles H. Spurgeon." Howard Edgar Moore, "The Emergence of Moderate Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and 'The Sword of the Lord,'" Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1990, 502-10."

I don't like the pick and choose attitude described here. Either take Spurgeon, or leave him. Same with Edwards. I understand that all people are flawed and you can't take everything everyone says, but I think it's wrong to publish edited versions of people's sermons to make them look as if they are saying something other than what they really said.

[John81]

I tried searching for it and they have an online example, but it doesn't have the articles you mentioned though it has some things to say against Calvinism in the sample.

From Wikipedia: "Although the paper is militantly anti-Calvinist, an exception is made for edited sermons of C. H. Spurgeon.[4]

4. In 1950, John R. Rice wrote of his editing practices, "If there are paragraphs which are not acceptable doctrinally, I indicate that they are to be left out." The Sword of the Lord, (September 22, 1950), 1. A scholarly study by Howard Moore discovered that Rice had deleted passages in many sermons, including those of Charles Finney, Talmage, and even Jonathan Edwards', "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." But, said Moore, "No other ancient worthy seems to have suffered as much from Rice's editorial license...as Charles H. Spurgeon." Howard Edgar Moore, "The Emergence of Moderate Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and 'The Sword of the Lord,'" Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1990, 502-10."

I don't like the pick and choose attitude described here. Either take Spurgeon, or leave him. Same with Edwards. I understand that all people are flawed and you can't take everything everyone says, but I think it's wrong to publish edited versions of people's sermons to make them look as if they are saying something other than what they really said.

I absolutely agree. Such censoring is inappropriate. If someone has a prOBlem with part of a serom or their writings, either don't print it or print it as is and then offer a rebuttal of what they disagree with or simply point out they disagree with whatever point.

It's interesting that Rice, like Spurgeon, differentiated between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists yet he felt a need to censor Spurgeon???

What really gets me about the whole debate is the unwillingness of so many to reasonably address verses the other side uses. To ignore certain verses or to proclaim simplistically that they don't mean what they say, especially while proclaiming the other side can't use that same tactic, is no way to win a debate or sway OBservers to your view.

Those few who actually do try and reconcile the seeming differences are most often ignored or shut out. I don't understand why so much emotionalism seems to be involved on this particular topic.

[anime4christ]

I absolutely agree. Such censoring is inappropriate. If someone has a prOBlem with part of a serom or their writings, either don't print it or print it as is and then offer a rebuttal of what they disagree with or simply point out they disagree with whatever point.

It's interesting that Rice, like Spurgeon, differentiated between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists yet he felt a need to censor Spurgeon???

What really gets me about the whole debate is the unwillingness of so many to reasonably address verses the other side uses. To ignore certain verses or to proclaim simplistically that they don't mean what they say, especially while proclaiming the other side can't use that same tactic, is no way to win a debate or sway OBservers to your view.

Those few who actually do try and reconcile the seeming differences are most often ignored or shut out. I don't understand why so much emotionalism seems to be involved on this particular topic.

Amen. I think most of the emotion is because the idea that God is sovereign in salvation goes completely against human nature and wounds the ego big time. Before anyone says it's not true though, I'll say that when I first came to reformed theology I was offended, but I did not realize it was my ego that was being wounded. I only saw that it was some time after I became reformed. It's difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced this though, because it does not feel like this to someone who is on the other side of the fence.

[DennisD]

Amen. I think most of the emotion is because the idea that God is sovereign in salvation goes completely against human nature and wounds the ego big time. Before anyone says it's not true though, I'll say that when I first came to reformed theology I was offended, but I did not realize it was my ego that was being wounded. I only saw that it was some time after I became reformed. It's difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced this though, because it does not feel like this to someone who is on the other side of the fence.

Goes both ways brother, of course my experience was the opposite. I did actually feel a little embarassed at first because to me I seemed to think I was better somehow because God chose (forced if you will) me in that way. It was more of a humbling experience to believe God wants us to come to Him of our own free will.

[heartstrings]

Amen. I think most of the emotion is because the idea that God is sovereign in salvation goes completely against human nature and wounds the ego big time. Before anyone says it's not true though, I'll say that when I first came to reformed theology I was offended, but I did not realize it was my ego that was being wounded. I only saw that it was some time after I became reformed. It's difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced this though, because it does not feel like this to someone who is on the other side of the fence.

The true and living God is all powerful and all knowing; He is in full control. By using the word "sovereign", you are saying that everthing that happens, and everything WE do is personally manipulated by him. Your god is a puppeteer. But what I mean by full control, is that God can do anything He wants except sin. Understand, that God allows us to choose HIm or reject Him of our own free will ****But this is where his true sovereignty comes in*****....God is going to judge you and I for whateve choice we made...good or bad and there will be NOTHING we can do about it. If you choose Christ, He takes you to Heaven, if your reject Christ, He puts you in Hell. Simple enough? And you can cry out to the rocks and mountains to fall on you and hide you from HIm if you want, but it will be in vain. My God is much more loving and more powerful than yours. Mine is gracious enough and yet all pwerful enough to require you to choose Him or reject Him of your own freewill. Your false god of Calvinism has to make people choose Him, because He is selfish and cruel, and he has nothing better to offer.

[anime4christ]

I could turn that argument all around but I do not have the time to do so right now. Instead I will ask you to provide a Biblical passage that supports your explanation. I don't mean to take a lot of verses out of context and rearrange them to fit that explanation, but one passage which describes the whole thing (or most of it) which you just posted. I will come back to this later and present my argument which can be backed up by a whole passage.

[Invicta]

if your reject Christ, He puts you in Hell. Simple enough?

All are condemned unless they are saved. The sentence is already passed. Satan is condemned as all those who reject Christ.

HS, I believe that your god is too small. Read Is 44:23-45:22. Did Cyrus have any choice in the matter? see also Ezra 1.

Some say that Cyrus did not fulfill this prophecy, given 150 years before he was born, absolute heresy. Is 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Did Cyrus have any say in the natter? No way. He was led by the hand, 45:1. When we lead a child by the hand he has to do what we say. 45:13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

"I will direct his ways." Remember this was written 150 years before Cyrus was born.

If any of you don't believe that God directs all your ways, your God is too small.

[anime4christ]

heartstrings, when you cannot prove your point biblically, you just use emotional arguments and attack people by saying they worship a false God. If you think that will convince anyone of your position, you are mistaken. No offense, but I'll just put it bluntly.

[John81]

I agree that all the talk of one or the other side serving a "false god" or a "small god" is unhelpful to either argument.

[heartstrings]

All are condemned unless they are saved. The sentence is already passed. Satan is condemned as all those who reject Christ.

HS, I believe that your god is too small. Read Is 44:23-45:22. Did Cyrus have any choice in the matter? see also Ezra 1.

Some say that Cyrus did not fulfill this prophecy, given 150 years before he was born, absolute heresy. Is 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Did Cyrus have any say in the natter? No way. He was led by the hand, 45:1. When we lead a child by the hand he has to do what we say. 45:13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

"I will direct his ways." Remember this was written 150 years before Cyrus was born.

If any of you don't believe that God directs all your ways, your God is too small.

28 that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: 2 Chr. 36.23 · Ezra 1.2 even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

150 years in the future yet God says "he is my shepherd". Why? Because God "inhabiteth eternity"; it was 150 years in the future but God could confidently say he "is" my shepherd. Did it say "I will make him my shepherd"? No. My God knows the future my friend. He is the alpha and the omega and he is already there. What do I mean? I mean that God simply knew Cyrus would be his shepherd 150 years in the future...or rather from God's perspective...already WAS his shepherd.
Read the words, sir, it does not say God MADE Cyrus to be his shepherd...simply says "is". Cyrus had to trust God in faith, just like everybody else. Edited September 17, 2010 by heartstrings

[anime4christ]

How can God know the future without determining it? That is only possible if something transcendent to God would determine it, because a man who does not yet exist cannot determine his fate. Is fate then transcendent to God? That is blasphemy my friend.

[heartstrings]

How can God know the future without determining it? That is only possible if something transcendent to God would determine it, because a man who does not yet exist cannot determine his fate. Is fate then transcendent to God? That is blasphemy my friend.

Actually, that statement has implications which indeed constitute blasphemy.
Did God determine that Hitler would want to kill 6 million Jews? Did he determine that Satan would be a liar and a murderer? Did He determine future things like lust, greed, lasciviousness, and murder? And if things like "confusion" exist, which we know they do, then how can the Bible say "God is not the author of confusion" if He determines everything? He does not detemine everything but He is all knowing and eternally existing he knows everything that ever happened or will happen just like He knows the location and number of every atomic particle of every last speck of dust in this universe.

because a man who does not yet exist cannot determine his fate

Correct: man cannot deternine his fate at all. What man determines, in his heart, is what he does and does not want to do. The Bible says "a man's heart deviseth his way, but the Lord direceth his steps". The all powerful, all knowing KIng of Glory allows that to be so, my friend and it does nto limit Him one little but. I explained to you in a previous post that God is in full control of everyone's fate.