Originally posted by whodey
To ask if God is unwilling or unable are both innacurate. Scripture indicates that it is God's will that none should perish. Also it says that through Christ we need not perish. Therefore, God is both willing and able to save us!!

Well then you should have said neither and explained why.
So:
1. It is Gods will that none should perish.
2. Some will perish (correct me if I am wrong).
3. God must be unable to carry out his will.

Where is the error in my logic?

I notice that your last sentence is actually ambiguous as to whether saving us is important to him ie he will save us if given our permission but it is not necessarily the most important thing to him. To illustrate I will ask: Can God save us even if we do not want to be saved? If he can, then what would be wrong with saying that he is unwilling to do so?

Originally posted by whodey
LOL! Yes, at times I feel the same. It seems to me that you approach a topic with the notion that the sky is blue and I approach a topic with the notion that the sky is green, however, it does not dawn upon either of us that the sky could be bluish green nor does it dawn upon us that we may have opposite views as what the terms sky and color actually represent. Usually such terms are defined by our view of them and not so much what they actually are.

What I find infuriating is the assumption by many Christians that everyone understands what they mean by various words eg life, death, etc when it is abundantly clear that my understanding of them is totally different from theirs.

I like your sky analogy in that the sky is not a physical object in any way, the sky is the view we see when we look up and is necessarily different for each individual observer. The color you see depends on the angle of the sunlight as it is refracted by the air and the quantity of air and dust hence the blue during the day and reddish morning and evening. When does it go green?
Also we talk about the sky as if it was a physical object or solid sphere surrounding the earth. It gets more confusing when we say that the moon, sun, and stars are "in" the sky.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you should have said neither and explained why.
So:
1. It is Gods will that none should perish.
2. Some will perish (correct me if I am wrong).
3. God must be unable to carry out his will.

Where is the error in my logic?

I notice that your last sentence is actually ambiguous as to whether saving us is important to him ie he will save u ...[text shortened]... want to be saved? If he can, then what would be wrong with saying that he is unwilling to do so?

I would say that saving us is very important to God. Christ gave the analogy of the shepherd who has a lost sheep. He will forsake the entire flock and go out looking for the one lost sheep. Christ is seen as this shepherd in question.

As far as #3, God is able to carry out his will which is to allow us to have free will. Thus he has willfully given us the right to counter his own will which is that none should perish. However, what are the implications for not having this free will to defy him?

Originally posted by whodey
As far as #3, God is able to carry out his will which is to allow us to have free will. Thus he has willfully given us the right to counter his own will which is that none should perish. However, what are the implications for not having this free will to defy him?

Essentially you are saying that it was more important to God to give us free will than to save all of us. So the answer to the original question would be he was unwilling to save us - if it meant sacrificing our free will, which it would for some of us.
Thus your claim that it is Gods will that none should perish is false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Essentially you are saying that it was more important to God to give us free will than to save all of us. So the answer to the original question would be he was unwilling to save us - if it meant sacrificing our free will, which it would for some of us.
Thus your claim that it is Gods will that none should perish is false.

Wrong once again. As I have stated before, God is love, therefore, a mutually loving relationship devoid of free will is an impossibility. Free will is a prerequisite for their to exist a mutually loving interaction. A mutually loving relationship demands that one have the option to embrace/reject the other. God embraces us and desires us to desire him, however, we must also be a willing party.

Originally posted by whodey
Wrong once again. As I have stated before, God is love, therefore, a mutually loving relationship devoid of free will is an impossibility. Free will is a prerequisite for their to exist a mutually loving interaction. A mutually loving relationship demands that one have the option to embrace/reject the other. God embraces us and desires us to desire him, however, we must also be a willing party.

So God is unable to save us. ie the answer to the original question is that God has failed to save us.

Originally posted by whodey
My concept of God in terms of our sinful nature is comparible to what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy when he said, I lay before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Therefore, choose life and blessing.....

Is it coersive to tell my children not to play in the street or else!!?? The cross takes into account the notion that one way or another ...[text shortened]... Also do not forget that Christ jumped in the street for us and was in no way obligated to do so.

My concept of God in terms of our sinful nature is comparible to what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy when he said, I lay before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Therefore, choose life and blessing.....

The difference is that the Israelites did not have a developed notion of an after-life. “Life,” in that historical context likely meant something more like “Live long and prosper.”

I’ll just excerpt from David S. Ariel’s What Do Jews Believe?—

“The [Hebrew] Bible contains no consistent theory about life after death... [And I think that holds today.]

“This passage [Genesis 3:17-19], like later ones (“If a man dies, can he live again?”—Job 14:14), suggests that life ends at the time of death. Other sections, particularly in the prophetic writings, suggest that there is an afterlife in which all the dead descend to a region in the depths of the earth called Sheol... It is a place of darkness and gloom where all the dead share the same unhappy fate... Only in the book of Ecclesiastes, which was one of the last Biblical compositions, offers a hopeful prediction about the destination of the individual after death: “The spirit of man returns to God, who gave it” (12:7) Later rabbis disagreed about whether death was a punishment for Adam’s sin or an inevitable stage in human destiny...

“The only explicit biblical reference to the afterlife comes from the very late Book of Daniel: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence” (12:2). This suggests that by the Second Temple period, when Daniel was composed, there was a belief that the good will be rewarded and sinners punished after death.”

BTW, transmigration of souls is still a prominent belief within Judaism.

Is it coersive to tell my children not to play in the street or else!!??

By definition, I think. But let's take the "or else" out of it: it is quite loving to constrain your children's choice-set in their own interests. That is, love requires that you constrain their free will. The question is, do you say "Love me or else!"? Now or when they are grown?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you should have said neither and explained why.
So:
1. It is Gods will that none should perish.
2. Some will perish (correct me if I am wrong).
3. God must be unable to carry out his will.

Where is the error in my logic?

I notice that your last sentence is actually ambiguous as to whether saving us is important to him ie he will save u ...[text shortened]... want to be saved? If he can, then what would be wrong with saying that he is unwilling to do so?

The logic is right on. The only alternative is that if God’s will is perfectly efficacious, and some are not saved, then God was unwilling to save them.

The choices are:

(1) God saves (everyone).

(2) God chooses not to save (at least some).

(3) God is unable to save (at least some).

One simply has to bite the bullet on one of those—thereafter one can offer (scriptural or other) reasons: e.g., the free-will argument, the self-restraint of God’s own will, God's desire to be loved, etc.

EDIT: whodey does put an interesting theological spin on this, with his sort of “love = life” perspective. I would say that this might lend at least internal consistency to the whole thing, except— Except for for that damnable notion of eternal reward/punishment. (Pun intended.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you should have said neither and explained why.
So:
1. It is Gods will that none should perish.
2. Some will perish (correct me if I am wrong).
3. God must be unable to carry out his will.

Where is the error in my logic?

I notice that your last sentence is actually ambiguous as to whether saving us is important to him ie he will save u ...[text shortened]... want to be saved? If he can, then what would be wrong with saying that he is unwilling to do so?

God does not want any to perish, but like all things, he will not force
you to do or be anything you don't want to be or do. If you don't want
saved, you will not be, it is not that God desires that for you, God has
made a way for all to be saved, but not all will be.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
God does not want any to perish, but like all things, he will not force
you to do or be anything you don't want to be or do. If you don't want
saved, you will not be, it is not that God desires that for you, God has
made a way for all to be saved, but not all will be.
Kelly

So your prefers a world with free will in which billions suffer in agony eternally, then one without free will in which no one suffers horribly.

Funny since this state has only infintesimal duration compared to heaven where surely no one has free will.

Originally posted by telerion
So your prefers a world with free will in which billions suffer in agony eternally, then one without free will in which no one suffers horribly.

Funny since this state has only infintesimal duration compared to heaven where surely no one has free will.

There is no doubt about it, love is a messy proposition. Who here has not suffered from it in one way or another? For example, people disappoint you, you disappoint them, they reject you, you reject them etc, etc. However, where would you be without it now?

BTW: Who says that free will ends in heaven?

Originally posted by vistesd

EDIT: whodey does put an interesting theological spin on this, with his sort of “love = life” perspective. I would say that this might lend at least internal consistency to the whole thing, except— Except for for that damnable notion of eternal reward/punishment. (Pun intended.)[/b]

Love = life and life = love. I like it, thanks!!!

As for the damnable notion, LOL, I would simply retort that perhaps love without pain/suffering is impossible. After all, you are opening the door to the possiblity of incuring the opposite of love which is sin. Thus rejection, disappointment, death etc are sure to insue as a result if that door is opened.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Essentially you are saying that it was more important to God to give us free will than to save all of us. So the answer to the original question would be he was unwilling to save us - if it meant sacrificing our free will, which it would for some of us.
Thus your claim that it is Gods will that none should perish is false.

I would have said that love is what is most important to him and we have free will as a byproduct of that love. 😉

Originally posted by whodey


BTW: Who says that free will ends in heaven?[/b]

There is no doubt about it, love is a messy proposition. Who here has not suffered from it in one way or another? For example, people disappoint you, you disappoint them, they reject you, you reject them etc, etc. However, where would you be without it now?

Okay. I was really just clarifying your point for myself.

BTW: Who says that free will ends in heaven?

It seemed to me that this must be the case or else people continue to sin in heaven.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]My concept of God in terms of our sinful nature is comparible to what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy when he said, I lay before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Therefore, choose life and blessing.....

The difference is that the Israelites did not have a developed notion of an after-life. “Life,” in that historical context likely meant something more like “Live long and prosper.”

I can come up with reasons for this apparent contradiction. (Speaking of apparent contradictions, you don't suppose there are any others in the Bible do you?) 😛

1. There was no developed notion of an after life thus nothing was written about it. However, it gradually developed over time and climaxed during the time of Daniel and was thus formaly birthed into the Jewish religion by Daniel.
2. There was a developed notion of the after life but it was assumed knowledge, therefore, it was not written down on paper until the time of Daniel.


As for the first possibility, I can see other possibilities as to why this might have been.
1. It is a man made theology and as man evolved so did his desire to live eternally.
2. God slowly revealed his plan for his creation over time so that by the time Daniel came on the scene God had fully revealed his plan of eternal life to Daniel.


Can you come up with any more?

As for you notion that choosing life and death and blessing and cursing have to do with this temperal world as well, I offer no arguement because I agree with this also, however, I would simply argue that it has eternal implications as well. If nothing else you must conceed that sin implicates future generations also so taking this into consideration one might be swayed to conceed that sinning does, in fact, have eternal consequences even if one does not believe in a God or an afterlife.