For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi will of sign and voluntas beneplaciti will of good pleasure , etc. The most careful exegete writing in Pinnock's Case for Arminianism concedes the existence of two wills in God. Howard Marshall applies his exegetical gift to the Pastoral Epistles. Concerning 1 Timothy he says.
We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will. The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.
In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall's point that "we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God's will.
Even before he starts his article, Piper who supports Calvinism affirms what I. Howard Marshall who supports Arminianism says… that there are two wills: what God would like to see happen and what he wills to happen. In the penultimate statement of his conclusion pasted in below this paragraph , Piper reaffirms that both he and people who hold to Arminianism affirm the two wills in God.
On that score, I side with the Arminians. Therefore I affirm with John and 1 Timothy that God loves the world with a deep compassion that desires the salvation of all men.
We understand this as men we do it ourselves , there is no reason why God cannot do this more so. But sovereignty for them means that absolutely nothing happens outside the direct interventional will of God.
If I my be permitted to quote myself elsewhere:. He wants to bless and to punish also! Under Arminianism God actually means what he says at face value, under Calvinism the prescriptive will of God is just a disguise for the ulterior decretal will. Two conditions does not in any conceivable way equal two wills.
Ah, the Calvinist may argue. Even so, whatever God does is just and right by fiat. And to that I actually would not argue—but I would respond, how does God reveal himself in his Word? But still, the Calvinist may object. We deny that voluntary suffering harm to save a life could in any meaningful way be an injustice or evil in the truest sense, because of the above aforementioned reasons. In the case of the reprobate, unalterably decreed to be damned due to no choice of their own and no corresponding system of response to autonomous action, we cannot see that as anything but an injustice and evil that has no redeeming values, virtues or results.
God has the right to do it—and even to call it good—but it is against how God revealed himself and set up the world. God is revealed as someone who does not desire to judge or bring harm, but rather to bless and prosper for his own pleasure and glory.
This does not nullify the effect that rebellion against his holiness brings catastrophic and horrific consequences. But for him to create solely for that purpose is to call evil as good and good as evil, for it makes nonsensical the Biblical teaching that Satan is the destroyer but Christ came to bring life.
Act These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Joh For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Psa The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. I just want to tell you thank you for your clear and respectful way of explaining things.
I watch your YouTube videos and you do a fantastic job. Thank you. Thank you so much Stephanie — for your very kind words! Yet in Acts Luke expresses his understanding of the sovereignty of God in these acts by recording the prayer of the Jerusalem saints: ' Truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever thy hand and thy plan boule had predestined to take place.
Therefore we know that it was not the 'will of God' that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the moral law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense" What God has eternally decreed shall occur may be the opposite of what he in Scripture says should or should not occur.
It is important to keep in mind that our responsibility is to obey the revealed will of God and not to speculate on what is hidden. Only rarely, as in the case of predictive prophecy, does God reveal to us his decretive will. Examples of God's preceptive or revealed will include Ezek.
Some would also place in this category 1 Tim. Examples of God's decretive or hidden will include James ; 1 Cor. Clearly, "waging war against the Lamb is sin and sin is contrary to the will of God. Nevertheless the angel says literally , 'God gave into their [the ten kings] hearts to do his will, and to perform one will, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled' v.
Therefore God willed in one sense to influence the hearts of the ten kings so that they would do what is against his will in another sense " Piper, ; emphasis mine.
It would have been a "good" thing had this king done so. Yet he didn't, because the Lord "hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate" Deut.
Thus "it was God's will in one sense that Sihon act in a way that was contrary to God's will in another sense that Israel be blessed and not cursed" Jehoshaphat insisted that they first consult a prophet to get God's perspective. Ahab, on the other hand, gathered of his prophets who told him to attack Ramoth Gilead and he would be victorious. Jehoshaphat consulted with the prophet Micaiah who told him of a vision he had had of a meeting of the heavenly council.
In the vision, God asked who would go to entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead, in which battle Ahab would die. A "spirit" angel? God agreed. The spirit went forth, Ahab heeded the voice of the prophets, and went forth in the battle where he eventually died. Some have argued that the "spirit" was in fact Satan, but there is no indication of this in the text.
The spirit is portrayed as simply one among many others. There is no evidence he held some superior or special position. Was this a fallen spirit, a demon?
It performs an evil function: it prompts Ahab's prophets to speak lies. Although the spirit is not Satan himself, there are undeniable parallels between this text and Job 1.
Also, the passage seems to draw a distinction between the spirit that inspires Ahab's prophets and the one that inspires Micaiah see v.
There are, of course, two distinct sources, but it is Micaiah who has the right one. After all, it is his prophecy that comes to pass" Page, Observe that even this demonic spirit is absolutely subject to the will of God. It does God's bidding. Micaiah is clear that it was God who "put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you" v. Thus God can and often does use demonic spirits to fulfill His purposes.
Again we see that the question, "Who did it, God or the devil?
0コメント