Here's the thing. To say that God has two wills is to say that He is of two minds on everything. True there are things that influence how God's will is done on the earth, There are demonic influences, as well as human influences. God's will is God's will period. He is not so impotent that his plans are upset by the interference of man, demon or angel. Is He sovreign of course He is, He is so much so that even as things unfold He is not surprised and is in such control, he can work things out to His purpose.
This is another attempt at twisting the Word of God.
I can take this and make this into whatever I choose it to be.
Let's stop twisting the Word of God to fit what we believe and let it be what it be.
Believe it or not this is where a lot of preachers and pastors get into trouble. They in their pride refuse to concede that they might be ignorant as to why something turned out the way it did, and as a result what they wind up doing is saying the most hurtful, most foolish things, and then wonder why the world looks at them as being clowns. We say and or do things that unfortunately paint us as fools, and before they local preachers here take this outta context and attempt to use the words of Paul where he said that He takes the foolish things to confound the wise, keep in mind Paul was talking to the Romans, about the Greeks and how it looks foolish to those outside the church, those of us who are in the church ought not behave as fools but rather be wise in how we deal with the sorrows of those around us. But the most sinister portion of how this is used is how preachers use this so called theory to control the members of their churches. We have a lot of practicing witches in the church, the working definition of witchcraft is the use of anything other than prayer and allowing for the Holy Spirit to control the lives and minds of others…..
Yes all things work together but the thing is that it works out because God is able to do as Joseph said to take the morass of what we go through and bring us out having learned something from it, and. A lor of things that we go through have more to do with our choices, or the intervention of demonic influences (see Daniel 10). Knowing this we see that God is able to get what He wants out of it, its has nothing to do with being permissive...
If you looked up the permissive will doctrine in a theological primer, you'd see it reflects what you are saying God did with Joseph's tragic experiences. I've never read the doctrine as though God intended, desired, or ordained evil things to happen to His followers; I think it would be imbecilic to teach, for example, that God sadistically sought Joseph's betrayal, enslavement, sexual harassment, and false imprisonment so that He could lift him up as Pharaoh's viceroy years later.
Actually, I can see finally from this answer that you don't have a problem with the doctrine of the permissive will of God, so much as you have a problem with the word "permissive" being used. Come to think of it, years ago I had a similar exchange with Les, so that probably is why the term irritates him so much too.
I had to go back to my unabridged dictionary to see how the old meaning of the word--"suffered or tolerated"--is now considered archaic; today "permissive" is largely viewed as having a negative connotation, like in the Merriam-Webster definition "deficient in firmness or control." The earliest use of "permissive will" that I can find, however, dates back to the Nineteenth Century, when "permissive" would have probably still been considered a synonym for "suffered" (the latter was then still a commonly used word, too). I am beginning to see this as the problem of theological terms not keeping up with the modern English language.
Johnathon, I was just about to respond when I read your complete response and I read, "Alot of things we go through have more to do with our choices..."
You are so right!!!!
What the church needs to stop doing is blaming God and putting blame on God for the CHOICES we've made in life.
Yes, all things work together but many pimps well preachers are using this scripture as a way to place blame on God and act like victims of the "Almighty arrogant God."
I take great offense to people that do this.
I can understand demonic influence however even in that the devil can't MAKE you do anything- he can only offer.
People need to be taught responsibility for their actions and using this scripture with that "permissive will" excuse does not fly with me.
No I do not actually have a problem with syntax. Let me help you out. By your standards and by the standards of Pastor King just the right amount of people died in Japan, just the right amount of people breathed their last in Libya when we bombed them. If a young lady goes out and gets raped it must be because God willed it after all you both have stated: “Embrace His will. It's ALL good” Here is your statement dissected and taken to its logical conclusion…
If what you are saying is true, then what do we need a devil for? If God is the one willing all the crap that happens to us if all the stuff that happens is according to God’s will permissive or otherwise, then when it does not happen it can be construed as being tragic. Here is the next logical question of whom are we speaking of, God or the devil? Because simply put if God wills permissively or otherwise kidnappings, rapes, murders, war, poverty and the like the next question once again is what do we need a devil for? Seriously if God is already controlling all that, and the devil is just the fall guy, taking the hit, but all he is doing is simply being a puppet on a string… The logical question after going through all this is simply this where do we get our picture of God from? If that is the picture you have, I submit it’s a little twisted... And if that is the God you look to allow me to introduce you to the person of Jesus Christ. Ask yourself how many times did Jesus afflict pain, how many times did He cause suffering, to whom did he say “the things that you are going through are due to God’s will being worked out”. Might I suggest a reading of Luke chapter thirteen verses one through five? Notice Jesus refuted the idea of God punishing those mentioned because of their sin. In fact in the first instance he laid the blame squarely on Pilate, in the second instance he tells the audience that it was not their sin that got them killed. I have heard that some teach that God, while being omnipotent, is not omnicontrolling, because to be so would remove free will of humans, angels, and demons. That is not to say that He is not involved which once again brings me full circle to the argument I presented earlier, what is our definition of power and control and how Christ like is our definition? Most of us think that power equals control because it is the kind of power we really wish for ourselves. Here’s the thing, if Jesus is our picture, our image, our example of what God looks like, why would we equate power with control? Is God all powerful, yes of course He is, is He all controlling, of course He is not. Yes God has His will, and no sometimes He does not get what He wants, (example, ancient Israel) but in it all He is still able to make good things come out of it, but to say that it is part of His will is just plain silly
Bro. Anthony, you have misunderstood me entirely. Did I not say that it is not God's will that anyone should perish? It is not God's will for any of us to die, but people die, and He permits it. In fact we were not created for death. We were created for life. You know this as well as I do. So stop being petty and childish. People die and people go to hell; and He allows it. Is God unjust then because he has allowed these things? I think not. I do not understand the concept of two wills either. Not once have I said that God has two wills. I said His will is one. Now, my argument is this: regardless of His will, be it whether we deem it to be good or evil, who are we to judge God? That is my only point. Please do not assign words to me that were not of my choosing. I only say His will is one, and that it is good. You are an astute man, and are clever with words, give God praise and glory for it. But do not use words manipulatively to down-trod your brothers and have people say and believe unprofitable things about them. When we act this way, people dishonor God because of us. Shame on you.
Bro. Anthony's last post: By your standards and by the standards of Pastor King just the right amount of people died in Japan, just the right amount of people breathed their last in Libya when we bombed them. If a young lady goes out and gets raped it must be because God willed it after all you both have stated: “Embrace His will. It's ALL good”
The “permissive will of God” doctrine does not relate to natural disasters, or give us perspective on the recent events in Northeastern Japan. I do not believe that extreme weather events are usually supernatural (either the cause of God’s or the devil’s direct intervention). Earthquakes and tsunamis are symptomatic of how the earth was corrupted by Adamic sin. (Of course, I do believe that in human history there have been some supernatural weather events, but another earthquake along the “ring of fire” fault line hardly qualifies as one.)
In this thread I’ve tried to consistently describe the “permissive will of God” doctrine as one would encounter it in Christian theology. Since my first post I’ve written that it explains how the free will choices of created beings are not countermanded by God. I’ve clarified that it does not mean that God desires, inspires or forgives any of the wickedness these created beings perform, only that He allows them to do so in respect of their free will.
I have never made the argument--like some poor-man’s Scientologist--that everything that happens in life is good, is God’s intent, or must be embraced. Pastor King seemed to say something like this (I must admit that I didn’t entirely understand his post) but in any case he rejects the doctrine of “permissive will” just like you do (albeit for different reasons, I suppose). Maybe he will answer the questions you raise about God’s will will when a woman is raped, etc. I’ve already explained that such sinful decisions by men are not God’s perfect will.
I have made the point that God promises to use even the sinful decisions by men for the furtherance of His glory and for the believers' ultimate good. He did this with the wicked actions of Joseph’s brothers, with the stubbornness of the Pharaoh during the exodus from Egypt, and in too many other examples to list. I thought this might be a position you debated until you basically articulated it yourself! So, although you claim otherwise, I think most of your argument with the “permissive will” doctrine is purely semantic.