Originally Posted by Rick

That confirms my suspician that you Rodger are an apple eater.

Originally Posted by Rick

The term God`s permissive will is a man-made term. So it`s subjectative and can take on whatever meaning is given to it.

The term God`s perfect will appears in the Bible one time.

Romans 12:2 (King James Version)

2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

In this passage the perfect will of God would manifest itself into your life through perfect obedience to the Spirit in both mind and body on your part.

The results would be the fruits outlined in Galatians 5:22-25. If you want to know what God`s perfect will is, the secret is found in Romans 8:28-29.

There are just two componants to God`s will. God has a sovereign will that cannot be violated and will come to pass no matter who likes it to be so or not. God also has a command will that we must choose whether to obey or not. Proving what is that good, acceptable and perfect will of God that Romans 12 is talking about requires obeying the commands that God has given us.

I would assume what is generally meant by "permissive will" would refer to things we can do as people which do not violate God`s commandments but yet serve no spiritual purpose and may not neccessarily be good for us.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Originally Posted by Meto

Dear Rick,

Because I'm a calvinist I see the term 'permisive will' relating to Gods' total sovereignty, in regards to his permitting the evil that obviously exists in the world, and in some future time coming to totally destroy that power.

The evil that we see is from Satan and the fallen creature and in no way the work of God, but as Sovereign Lord of all, he must be permitting the existence of these things, otherwise they could not and would not exist.
This accords with scripture when we read texts about all things exist because he wills it, including Satan.

Permissive will in 1 Corinthians, I believe is about our freedom from ritualistic religious worship. Meaning intrinsic things like abstainence from drinking alcholic drinks etc, do nothing to make us holy, as some people in Pauls day had problems about food etc.
The edifying is the effect it may have on others that don't understand their freedom prorperly and struggle with morally nutural items.
In the edifying of others that are weak in these matters, we are not to please ourselves, and not do what would offend these people, like having a cold beer in their presence.
I go to a church that is probably that way inclined, so I wouldn't allow my freedom to be judged by another, thereby causing him to sin.(wrongly judging my actions)
In the church I went to before they'd ask you if you wanted a beer from the fridge.(totally different)
So it is unlawful for me to act selfishly knowing my freedom will bring another down, my actions should always be controlled by the law of love.

Check out Romans 14:21, These things are permissable but not always in everyone's best interest.

Rod.

Originally Posted by Rick

Hello Rod,

You state that permissive will relates to God permitting evil to exist temporarily. Then you follow up by relating it to the freedom that we have in God`s grace and redefining what permissive will is.As I have said permissive will is not a term or doctrine of the Bible so one can make it mean anything one wants to including definitions that conflict with each other.

Doing something that is permissable but not necessarily edifying has nothing to do with evil. It is neither evil nor sin. Scripture states that where there is no law there is no transgression.

As the scripture plainly affirms that God`s will is both perfect and good it is not possible for evil to exist as God`s will. This is the great flaw in Calvin`s doctrine. Permitting evil to exist for the good of the elect does not make evil God`s will. It does mean God will not allow the existence of evil to thwart His will and that God is able to use evil as a tool to perform His good and perfect will. The evil itself is contrary to His will yet it is also subject to obey His sovereign will.

Your second definition of permissive will can be made to work. Your first is not sustained when tested by scripture.

Originally Posted by Meto

Why I said Gods' permissive will and our own freedom, is that God in his forknowledge can use evil events for good purposes.
But we, by using what we know is a approved, that is morally neutral, offend the uninformed brother, we in what we allow for ourselves spiritually harm others.
I'm just comparing the freedoms of the saints to the freedoms of God and his control of evil.
On the other hand Calvanism rightly understands that God uses Satan for his historical plan, and his sanctifying of the saints. God does no evil but through it brings about a greater good. That is true doctrine otherwise God would be guilty of allowing sin to prosper for no positive reason.


Rod.

Originally Posted by Rick

Like most denominations and creeds of men there is a varience of views among Calvinists. I`ve met several and they have all been extremists who had a perverted view of God and His methods of chosing His elect.

You are the first one I`ve met who isn`t completely whack

Why call your creed Calvinism though? Why not believe Pauline doctrine and use Pauline terms?


12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Calvin; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Calvin crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Calvin?

Originally Posted by Meto

First of all, without knowing you personally Rick, I'm sure the faith you have is genuinely the result of the grace of God gifted to you, I read enough of your posts to conclude that much!
So, I'm not about to try and patronize you as if your're a babe in knowledge
But, Calvinism has always been the concept of regeneration of the human soul or heart held as true doctrine before the 20th century.

( Calvinism has only been around a few hundred years and it`s not nearly as simplistic as you are making it out here. Calvinism is a creed and a religeous movement. A called out, spirit filled, end time believer has no need for Calvin or his opinions.)

Armininism has been around for centuries in various forms

( I haven`t a clue what that is.)

but became the modernists creed of election, because of a number of reasons.

( I haven`t a clue what that is either. I just go by what Jesus, Paul and them other guys said about it.)

Firstly the ingrained Western view of freedom as glorified throughout Western societies as the freedom to choose for ones' self over an array of options, including who governs us as inexhoriably desirable, is seen as undeniably good.
The persuasion of Arminiumism takes this great utopian ideal(which is actually anti-christian), then applies it in the realms of Christian Doctrine, and redefines the way God is involved with the regeneration of the human soul.
It appeals to the natural desire to be actively invovled in owns own justification with God a nuetral onlooker hoping for a positive choices to be made,

( I haven`t a clue what that is all about. How does it pertain to anything I`ve said anywhere in any message on this website?)

and even if we say God knows who'll make right choices doesn't that still negate his involvement in election?

( No. How would it do that being that He makes the choices?)

No! and emphatically No!,

(Oh I see. You ask me a question and then you tell me the answer. So you are making a statement under false pretence of asking a question.)

God is sovereign in all things, especially in election, as Lazarus was called to life by Jesus from the tomb so with us by the graciousness and mercy of God have been reborn.

( And your point is?)

Can anyone effect his own birth?, so it is with us, as David says, blessed is the man whom the Lord will demand an account for his sins.
We have been graciously appointed to eternal life, once you fully understand the magnitude of Gods' grace you would never again believe you were the catalyst of spiritual(eternal)life.

(??? Looks like you are putting words in my mouth friend. You better check me out a little closer before you propose to tell me what I believe or what I don`t believe. In a nutshell what I have said is that Calvin twisted the Pauline doctrine of election which tends to make people who are followers of Calvin instead of followers of Paul get it wrong.)

This is Calvinism or truely the teachings of the Holy Spirit or Pauline, as they all speak the truth.

( Calvinism when properly understood perverts truth.)

That is why some scripture of election and its deeper spiritual reflections are closed to people with only an Armininism understanding of election.

( Haven`t a clue what you mean. I don`t think Armininism is um in the Bible. Of course neither is Calvinism. I hasn`t a clue what that was until about a year ago when some fine Calvinist furthered my education in manmade doctrine.)

They are baffled when people they know verbally make a decision or respond to an alter call are now no longer in the church, because they were never chosen by God but they were only called.

( Who is? The Arminininsms folks?)

Executive clemency comes from the King,

To read scripture correctly we know God has chosen to save all men, but only those that he has chosen.

( That`s quite a contradiction you just got going here. In one breath you say God chooses to save all and then you exclude the unchosen. You can`t have it both ways and still proclaim that you understand what God is doing.)

It is not by human effort ability or choosing correctly that qualifys, it is Gods call that qualifys as ever for Abraham.
Read Romans 9 over and over and you will start to see the democratising of the kingdom of heaven is a joke, that's if you want to believe all that the bible says in context.

( Whose context? Yours, Calvins or Gods ? )

Acts 14:48, says, When the gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and allwho were appointed to eternal life believed.
It is God who appoints, not us all were ignorant unbelieving pagans, just as today most are really materialistic secularists, only by and throuh the grace of God do we now see.

( Point?)

The modern ideology that effects everyone is that of self and false freedoms of choice, even in modern democracies the candidates that really have any hope have been groomed and pre-seleced, by the rich and elite, we are lead to believe our vote changes things.
The same is with God he controls the inevitable outcomes especially who recieves eternal life.

( So you are comparing God`s method with the methods of the devils who run this world. Typical of Calvins followers. I was expecting better of you though.)

The reasons we have to say Calvinism is to distinguish our understanding from the Arminiansm that is now the excepted Doctrine in these later days.

( I say let`s be honest and declare them both man made doctrine and try believing the explainations found in scripture instead.)


When you think its no different than the Catholic view of human effort to believe to take sacraments,etc, but we know its not by works but by faith and that type which is imputed by God that James speaks of a faith that works (sanctification) and Glorifies God for His grace.

( And?)

God Bless Rick,

Rod.

Originally Posted by Rick

Originally Posted by Meto

Rick,

The Doctrine of pre-destination is Pauline doctrine. And not that we pre-destine ourselves, that would be a condradiction of the meaning to be pre-destined.
The bible is obviously using the term as it applies to Gods choices, not ours!

( And what is your point? Hint behind the question, I don`t understand why you think you need to explain Paul`s doctrine to me.)

Narrative, such as 'He predestined us to be ....', clearly speaks of the sovereign choices' God alone can make, namely the election through regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

(Point is?)

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch theologian 1560-1609, he is the father of modern arminianism, which claims that election is conditional on mans' response.
This appeals to the natural mind because it relieves God of being accussed as partial in election and maintains the absolute value of mans free will.

( Ok. And what does that have to do with me or this conversation? I don`t understand.)

But if we read the scriptures correctly Paul absolutely denies the value of mans free-will in aquiring and attaining through his own deduction the justification of God, who alone imputes the spirit of grace. Otherwise Grace would no longer be the gift of grace.

( There`s more to it then that and you are putting your words in Paul`s mouth. I`d feel better if you quoted Paul`s words the next time you propose to tell me what Paul said.)


The false doctrine of grace of Arminianism is the contempory, simplistic and unbiblical defining of the work of regeneration.

( Ok. But you are having a one sided conversation about the topic. And again. What does that have to do with this conversation?)

The gospel call to come to Christ is for the unregenerate hear, but the seed is either watered by God or not. Thats why Jesus says in, John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day".

( What about the plants who die? They are watered.)

Understand that this is what Paul and Jesus were talking about, God is Sovereign in the process of election.

(And?)

Calvinists are accussed of having a fatalistic view of pre-destination, but fate speaks of blind chance and this could be no further from the truth that the Sovereign creator decrees for all eternity the electon of his chosen children.

(Calvinism disregards the saving power of hope. Calvinism denies that salvation is available to whosoever will. Calvinism believes that God makes no effort to save the unchosen. Calvin`s folks believe that God teases the called but won`t save them. Calvinists deny that God`s foreknowledge of our works plays a part in how He determined who He would chose. That is why Calvinism gets it wrong.)

Thats why we can have total assurance

( ??? You just lost me. I see nothing in your remarks that grant total assurance. You are telling me that God picks the elect and I feel like I`m back in baby Bible school again. But you have said nothing to give one total assurance.)

whereas Arminians only have faith in their own decision making at any given moment, which actually discounts God providential care and covenent promises made in scripture.

( Arminians again. That`s kind of a hang up for you isn`t it? Try that on Eric Martin. You can push his buttons with all that armi talk I expect.)



Rod.