God's "Permissable" Will ???

[Scarecrow]

? "how sad" ? ...really???

So you think I am incapable of enjoying the life that God set before me? Oh the agony! Oh the anguish! How terrible it is to have to walk in the good works that God prepared for me! :roll:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Golly beaver! Did I read that right? It says that God prepared those good works beforehand that we should walk in them! I never realized that before!!! :lol:

The fact that you believe that my life is so sad simply shows your ignorance, and indeed, how truly sad that is for you. I would be much less happy if I was Judaizer. I guess only Pharisees with their superior intellect and extraordinary insight into the mind of God can actually enjoy life (that is should they manage to keep the law for even one minute).

Come to think of it, the most miserable people I have known personally are the Judaizer/Pharisee types. Many of them are no longer Christians. Does it get any sadder than that?

 

[Jim]

I may be confused, but is the tension here over justification?

 

[Jim]

Normally this idea surfaces in circles where either an Arminian or Calvinist ideology is the persuasion of thought. And in most theological circles one of those is the ideology being espoused in some degree or another.

Almost all of us agree in some type of two will system in God. The Calvinists and Arminians debate this often and usually the Arminian says he does not embrace a two will theory but in reality all do but at times they place in different places.

For example, the Calvinist says God has a general will for all to be saved but decrees in specific that only the chosen ones from before the foundation of the world will be saved. One is his express or general will and the other is his active or particular will. In regard to sin holiness is his active will and sin is due to his passive or permissive will.

In regard to Arminians, they will often say that God also has a desired or revealed will and also a secret or permissive will. They will often place the contingency factor on man's choice. For example, God has all knowledge. He knew that he would create both people (John and Joe) and that Joe would accept Christ as Savior but that John would not. Yet he goes ahead and creates both and calls both to salvation. His general will and open or revealed will is for both to be saved. His hidden or permissive will is that one will certainly be damned but he still goes ahead and creates both.

In short, basically all theologies that affirm the absolute inspiration of Scripture find two concurrent attributes of God running through Scripture: His sovereignty dispensing either grace or justice. His will of grace and his will of justice is however defined differently by both groups.

This seems to be an area where nobody can agree, but I'm trying to understand both sides. What are the underlying differences between calvinism and Arminianism? Is it freewill? It seems that the general or expressed will (calivinist) and the revealed or desired will (Arminain) are similar in that both come from God's grace side where his will is for all to be saved. Then on the other side of both theologies, the particular will or active will (calvinist) and the secret will and revealed will (Arminian) are similar in that both come from God's legal or justice side. When someone says to seek God's perfect will, should that be his general or revealed will? I might be over simplifing it but my brain hurts! :? To those pastors that try to condemn us... Why can't we just take the Word for what it says, rather than trying to confuse someone with theological idea's that nobody agrees on! It creates stumbling blocks and thats sin!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I will try and answer your thoughts line by line here. First let me address the stumbling block issue. Theological discourse in and of itself can not be a stumblingblock if we define that term by the historical cultural context. In hermeneutics, the science of how to properly interpret words and sentences, we have a rule called historical referent. The history behind the term stumblingblock has to do with believers doing things that even the pagan culture rejects or finds offensive. It arises most often from Romans 14 where Paul addressed the issue of not causing a brother to stumble. Debate, dialogue, and even difficulty in trying to discern a subject properly it a good thing if the receiver works through it with the right heart of seeking to grow in knowledge.

Now onto your questions.

This seems to be an area where nobody can agree, but I'm trying to understand both sides. What are the underlying differences between calvinism and Arminianism? Is it freewill?

The two systems are somtimes brought down to that but in reality they represent a larger issue of God's decree more so than man's will. However, that is an aspect that plays into the discussion. The two systems have more to do with how does God know the future. The basic sovereignty position most often associated with Reformed or Calvinistic or Augustinian thought says God knows the future because he has thought it out in his own mind through his decree/plan. The basic Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian or Arminian or Wesleyan position says that God knows the future either because he looks to learn it or he simply sees it all at the same moment of eternity.

Then both sides break down even further in sub-level issues. The more focused on sovereignty one is he might see all things as being from the active will of God (more like Dr. Theodore Beza). Others however see God as having an active and passive will (Calvin, Dr. Hodge). The more one is focused on free-will of man the more he might see all things as contigency plans by God. Some are full Pelagians who say God does not nudge or prompt the will in any way and that man has complete total sovereignty over his will to even act contrary to his own nature. Other are not that far and are more like a John Cassian or even Arminian himself who hold that man's will is in bondage and not free but through common grace he has been given back some limited ability to respond to grace. One branch has even gone so far of this group to declare that God makes educated guesses about the future, technically called open theism (Dr. Pinnock and Dr. Sanders).

It seems that the general or expressed will (calivinist) and the revealed or desired will (Arminain) are similar in that both come from God's grace side where his will is for all to be saved.

That is basically accurate. Sometimes the terms are interchangeable. Revealed will, express will, general will, are often the same.

Then on the other side of both theologies, the particular will or active will (calvinist) and the secret will and revealed will (Arminian) are similar in that both come from God's legal or justice side.

Well, not exactly. For example, God's decree according to the Calvinist system in regard to election unto salvation is a secret will unto grace. His passive will (low Calvinist view) to reprobate is a secret will of justice. In the active will top reprobate (high or hyper Calvinist view) the will to damn is also a secret will as well and thus it touches both the side of grace and justice.

When someone says to seek God's perfect will, should that be his general or revealed will?

It is best to ask what they define the term as. It is hard to say what everyone means in saying that. I have known one friend and theologian who has taught me a lot to use the term: "God will of grace or God's will of justice." That makes more sense to me. We can't really be outside of the will of God because God is omnipresent and thus with him knowing all things (either in the Calvinist sense or in the classical Arminian sense) one cannot escape the plan of God. One is either in his gracious plan or in his plan of justice.

I might be over simplifing it but my brain hurts! To those pastors that try to condemn us... Why can't we just take the Word for what it says, rather than trying to confuse someone with theological idea's that nobody agrees on! It creates stumbling blocks and thats sin!

As noted above, education in and of itself is not a bad thing. Now if someone is intentionally trying to confuse you that is a sin issue as that is unloving. But a thorough study of these issues from both angles is really a great educational journey. Too often people fail to actually study this issue in depth and thus they lack depth in their own mental acuity with this issue.

If you are interested in reading two books to get a good grasp of this issue then here are two short but thoroughly balanced presentations of both sides:

"Why I am Not a Calvinist" by Dr. Walls and Dr. Dongell.

And "Why I am Not an Arminian" by Dr. Peterson and Dr. Williams.

Remember, intellectual development is a part of spiritual growth. Even if one reads those books and/or many others and arrives at one position or another or even at a combination view with various nuances and shades from one or both sides the study of this subject stretches the mind like no other subject in the Bible. Those who have taken the time to become well versed in this subject will find that they have matured greatly in their intellectual capacity and to that end everyone from all sides can be grateful and thankful for the subject at hand.

 

[steve]

? "how sad" ? ...really???

So you think I am incapable of enjoying the life that God set before me? Oh the agony! Oh the anguish! How terrible it is to have to walk in the good works that God prepared for me! :roll:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Golly beaver! Did I read that right? It says that God prepared those good works beforehand that we should walk in them! I never realized that before!!! :lol:

The fact that you believe that my life is so sad simply shows your ignorance, and indeed, how truly sad that is for you. I would be much less happy if I was Judaizer. I guess only Pharisees with their superior intellect and extraordinary insight into the mind of God can actually enjoy life (that is should they manage to keep the law for even one minute).

Come to think of it, the most miserable people I have known personally are the Judaizer/Pharisee types. Many of them are no longer Christians. Does it get any sadder than that?

wow, and i thought that your last post was sad :!: :roll:
you have really outdone yourself.

 

[Jim]

When someone says to seek God's perfect will, should that be his general or revealed will?

It is best to ask what they define the term as. It is hard to say what everyone means in saying that. I have known one friend and theologian who has taught me a lot to use the term: "God will of grace or God's will of justice." That makes more sense to me. We can't really be outside of the will of God because God is omnipresent and thus with him knowing all things (either in the Calvinist sense or in the classical Arminian sense) one cannot escape the plan of God. One is either in his gracious plan or in his plan of justice.


As noted above, education in and of itself is not a bad thing. Now if someone is intentionally trying to confuse you that is a sin issue as that is unloving. But a thorough study of these issues from both angles is really a great educational journey. Too often people fail to actually study this issue in depth and thus they lack depth in their own mental acuity with this issue.

If you are interested in reading two books to get a good grasp of this issue then here are two short but thoroughly balanced presentations of both sides:

"Why I am Not a Calvinist" by Dr. Walls and Dr. Dongell.

And "Why I am Not an Arminian" by Dr. Peterson and Dr. Williams.

Remember, intellectual development is a part of spiritual growth. Even if one reads those books and/or many others and arrives at one position or another or even at a combination view with various nuances and shades from one or both sides the study of this subject stretches the mind like no other subject in the Bible. Those who have taken the time to become well versed in this subject will find that they have matured greatly in their intellectual capacity and to that end everyone from all sides can be grateful and thankful for the subject at hand.

Thanks I will get those books. I'm putting together my response to my pastor and will ask him how he defines "perfect" will vs "permissive" will. Like you said, everyone defines it differently and that leads to confusion. The phrases "God's will of grace" and "God's will of justice" is simple, to the point, and I like that! I hope I didn't offend anyone, I'm just agrivated with my pastors comment, "A sincere believer in the Lord Jesus would desire God's perfect will, not His permissive will." Your either a believer or not and if you are, you desire His word which is "perfect".

 

[Scarecrow]

"you have really outdone yourself."

Why thank you...I thought I made things rather clear in a succinct manner. Unfortunately you offer no rebuttal just snide comments...typical Judaizer/Pharisee.

 

[steve]

"you have really outdone yourself."

Why thank you...I thought I made things rather clear in a succinct manner. Unfortunately you offer no rebuttal just snide comments...typical Judaizer/Pharisee.

really?????

 

[Jim]

It was the way the pastor made polygamy appear because of God's "permissive" will. Does this "perfect" will vs "permissive" take us back to the strife over God's original intents? Brothers it's a blessing to be discipled.

In a perfect world there would be no need for adoption. Each child would have a perfect family in which to grow up, never broken by death, strife, or abuse. We don't live in a perfect world. (Now here is the key phrase...) Adoption is God's perfect provision for an imperfect world, so that each child may be raised with both a mom and dad, as God ordained normal and healthy.

Good point Cecil! Reminds me of the Lord's adoption of his children.

 

[Jim]

[/quote]Too many preachers and teachers have yet to develop the awareness of our genuine liberty in Christ.[/quote] John what kind of liberty does a believer have within the Church as far as PM is concerned?

 

[Anonymous]

CecilW said
I'm glad that God's permissable will allows me to enjoy chocolate :lol:

I sincerely want to thank Cecil for bringing up the topic of chocolate !!! May Elohim bless him !!
(BTW, Elohim is plural, incorporating both Yahweh and Yeshua....and that's all I'm ever going to say about the matter. )

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

Jim wrote,

John what kind of liberty does a believer have within the Church as far as PM is concerned?

Jim, I think it is a compound question. First, the believers liberty in Christ, second the believers liberty within the churches.
(1.) As believers we have been given the liberty of sons of God. We are not bound in that liberty by the laws of men. We have been given the Word of God and indwelt by the Spirit of God to be our guide and empowerment. When we consistently read His Word and listen to the Holy Spirit's leadership they are the one and same voice, giving us confirmation that this is the right way. Each Christian man is a priest before God for his family and has all the responsibility of a priest by representing God to them, by example, by teaching precept and principles of the Word (Bible) and of representing them before God by serious searching of the scriptures for God's direction for his family, as well as being an intercessor in prayer for them. This is the duty of a husband and father, a patriarch. The liberty we have as believers allows us to seek the throne of God without hindrance and to follow our conscience as led by God in ministering to our families.

(2.) As believers within a church, we have less liberty, yet greater obligation. In a church setting we are part of a larger unit than our family. As men we are the leader of our family, but in the church, we are part of the whole and we have representative leadership. We, by accepting that we are a part of a church have the same responsibility to submit to our church leadership as our wives do in submitting to us. In my opinion, failure to realize this role for men in the church is one of the greatest failures in polyworld. Too many men do not respect any spiritual authority and by doing so are teaching rebellion to their families. We do not have the authority in the church to demand that everyone believe and behave the same as we do. If we have discovered Biblical truth, such as plural marriage, we need to behave responsibly and lovingly as brethren in the assembly.

I think this is a good course of action:
A. Know what we are talking about, make sure we are right and can teach this truth to others. Do not expect others, including pastors and teachers to abandon life long beliefs just because you are excited.
B. Be confident and sure in your demeanor. Hesitation and uncertainty on your part sends a message before you even speak. It says, "I hope this is right and I want it to be for some reason I am ashamed to mention." Boldness and confidence will often carry the field before the toughest of foes.
C. Be loving and do not make every new issue a matter of separation. Make the brethren more important than any non-salvation belief issue. You are a part of that body and not the head.
D. Pray, pray, pray, pray for yourself as to your belief and for your brethren that God will open their heart. You cannot be the ultimate teacher of truth, it must be the Holy Spirit.
E. Be patient, without compromising your own beliefs. How long were you a believer before you discovered this truth (plural marriage or anything else)? Give them room to grow and learn. Your new truth is only new in your life and circle, it's been around somewhere else for a long time. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun and that is quite accurate.
F. Be prepared. It is possible that a new truth will not be accepted by your church. That doesn't mean they are not saved, just bound in their own tradition. If that is the case, I am sure the Lord has been trying to teach them other things also and gotten nowhere. Therefore you need to be prepared to leave of your own volition (if the issue is important enough to you) or by the will of the church. Neither is a pleasant prospect, but is included in the liberty of a believer in a church. It may be necessary for you to function as the priest/pastor of your own home worship for your family. Such is the responsibility of a patriarch.

This is written with a lot of you and yours included, not meant for you personally, Jim but for all of us.

 

[Anonymous]

This thread has taken major deviation from the original post, so it will be locked at this point. If there is anything that is yet left unsaid, please feel free to open a new thread under that topic. Thanks for understanding.