Another Question for the Arminian

[Hazelelponi]

According to you, it's God's will.. not a "regret". He Designed their expulsion.. meticulously.. no 'ragrets'.

You are misrepresenting what I said.about God.

But you’re right in that God does not “regret” in the way man does (Numbers 23:19), but He does not decree wickedness because He enjoys it—He permits and ordains it for wise, holy, and just ends That’s God's providence.

It’s easy to paint God's decrees in monstrous terms when we assume man's feelings or definitions should measure divine justice. But Scripture does not teach a God who merely reacts to history—He declares “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). And yes, that includes sin, evil, judgment, and redemption. All of it is under His sovereign rule.

Yet at no point is God the author of sin—He ordains all things, including sin and,/or sinful acts, without being morally culpable for them. This is not contradiction, but the mystery of God's providence. Joseph’s brothers meant evil; God meant it for good (Genesis 50:20). Pilate and Herod conspired to kill Christ; God purposed it for our salvation (Acts 2:23). These aren’t hypotheticals—they are the very heart of redemptive history.

So no, I don’t think I'm better than anyone—not the psychopath, not the moralist, not even the devil himself apart from grace. That’s the point: “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:10). And that Grace came through Blood—not sentiment.

We don’t get to define good and evil over against God—we learn what they are by seeing how God has revealed it to us in His Word.

I would refer you, in your own time as I won't debate my own thoughts, just how impossible salvation really is if it was left up to our own devices. Yet God secured the salvation, sanctification, and glorification, of a numberless multitude of saints. It's very amazing when you consider it.

 

[Arial]

@XrzrX

Could you please address the full content of Post #63. You just picked one minor point to deal with and left the rest as nothing. It was a part of a conversation between us meant to be discussed and debated. After all, your got all over @CrowCross for doing the very same thing.
Thanks.

 

[John Bauer]

The quote is verbatim "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

And I responded to that quote:

Exactly. And who is it that listens and responds to God? Those who belong to God. "You don't listen and respond BECAUSE you don't belong to God" (John 8:47; emphasis mine).

Same message as before: "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep" (John 10:26; emphasis mine).

Again, the same consistent message across the board.

How is it incorrect to say, "If one hears and learns from the Father, they come to Jesus"?

Wait, who said it's incorrect?

Those who belong to God, the sheep, listen and respond to him who speaks through the Shepherd, to whom they are given and whose voice they listen to and follow.

It's not meant to be extrapolated that God upholds the horror of man's wickedness.

Suppose Smith murders Jones and robs him. God knew it would happen and had the power to stop it, yet he didn't stop it. If his non-intervention wasn't due to either ignorance or inability, then it was intent. He willed that it happen.

That leaves one persistent question, the answer to which reveals the fork in the road your theology takes: Does God have a purpose in what he wills to happen?

My answer? "Yes." I don't know and cannot discern what his purpose might be in any particular situation—affirming he has a purpose does not suggest we know the purpose—but I firmly believe that God does nothing arbitrarily, and nothing happens apart from his counsel and will (i.e., nothing God wills is purposeless).

What is your answer?

 

[John Bauer]

Maybe it is a jarring word to use given that our culture is obsessed with sex. [Piper] did clarify his meaning, however, and what he meant is what counts ...

Of course it was jarring. And anyone familiar with John Piper will know he does that on purpose. I am not a fan of his Christian hedonism philosophy—a source of frequent misunderstanding and error—but I can charitably interpret what he means, unlike some other folks.

Fred Butler, a staff member at Grace to You (the media ministry of Grace Community Church), was there at the 2024 Shepherds Conference when John Piper made that comment and provided some much-needed context.

Piper said,

What are we after in our people's lives? And everybody said, Obedience! And so did I, amen. But you had already quoted, If you love me, you will obey me.

So I'm thinking, I'm after love, folks. And you are, too. And because that love, that love is not equal to obedience, and that love is not equal to agape, that love is erotic to the core. That's an overstatement. Eros means I find pleasure in you, Jesus. I find pleasure in you, Jesus. You are my preciousness.

And there comes obedience.

Butler said that everyone in the room laughed and Piper immediately reacted, "That's an overstatement," clarifying what he meant by it—the context of which is this Christian hedonism, of course. After admitting that Piper's use of that word was "a tad unnecessary" and comes from his old book (which would be Desiring God), Butler continues: "He goes on to explain that our obedience is more than just sterile obedience, but it comes out of a heart that finds Christ precious and takes pleasure in serving him. I would hope that is true of all of us who name Christ."

And our friend here, @XrzrX, is not the first person to strawman Piper and excoriate him for this overstatement, a move that is definitely revealing.

 

[makesends]

And this is what I (and many) consider psychopathic hyper Calvinism. You want us to, in the same breath. declare the goodness of God.. and that some poor victim chained in a basement somewhere, when a monster walks in with a skil saw to pour out the horror of Hell on them.. that That is "God's ordained, intentional, designed will for them". Its socio/psychopathic. No one that knows God believes this insanity.

I find myself thinking you consider this life to be only what it is, for its own sake, and not a means for the eternal good.

Further, you imply a less-than-omniscient God, who has designed things so that he is never accused of wrongdoing, by somehow, causing that he did not cause something. It is not only self-contradictory, logically, but monstrous, biblically.

 

[Paul]

The question was "If God wants all to be saved, why doesn't he give all to the Son?" Posted by @John Bauer

I merely agree that if God wants all to be saved, "WHY" does he not give all to the Son. No yes or no required.

"May your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" is a prayer.

 

[Rella]

It was a rhetorical question. I was making a point to Makesends who was asking me to 'explain how the sausage was made' with regard to God's omniscience/omnipotence. The "point" being, some things we can't 'explain' and 'no beginning' is one of them. Don't try to explain it, you can't. Just know it's true.

So sorry I bothers you with my opinion.

 

[Arial]

And this is what I (and many) consider psychopathic hyper Calvinism. You want us to, in the same breath. declare the goodness of God.. and that some poor victim chained in a basement somewhere, when a monster walks in with a skil saw to pour out the horror of Hell on them.. that That is "God's ordained, intentional, designed will for them". Its socio/psychopathic. No one that knows God believes this insanity.

You may consider it whatever you want. What you consider it does not mean that is what it is. But you need to quit using that catastrophic language to bolster your opinion, and attaching it to what Calvinists believe, calling them socio/psychopathic.

This is a discussion board where differing beliefs and interpretations can be discussed. It should be done with respect, and respectfully, and with a willingness to listen and learn as per the RULES.

That hyperbolic, incendiary (meant to cause fires and inflame emotions) and accusatory language has no place here. You can say what you need to say in a way that promotes discussion and deals with points of the theology, with respect and in the spirit of learning something you may not know (like what the theologies really are and where they come from)without that type of language. If you can't, then perhaps an attitude adjustment is necessary.

This is not a place to bash Calvinism/Reformed. We have put up with enough of that for years, on almost all other forums.

We are more than happy to discuss and explain the tenets of C/R, and listen and address any counterpoints made. We expect to be treated with that same spirit of brotherhood.

Thank you.