Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Dear brother, are the following scriptures what you may be referring to? Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Hi Eugene.
Nothing from outside a man makes him unclean... hmm.... that's very decent.

But, I think a stronger, more direct statement is important for the heart of man can be molded by God.
So, It's important to show that God doesn't condemn for what he does to a man, but rather for the time when a man does it to himself.
If it were only God who hardened (predestined) a mans heart, there would be no condemnation -- but once man does it himself, with knowledge, there is no excuse.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
John 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Sin, to be fully condemnable, must not have an external cause.

Consider: A potter doesn't take china clay and make earthenware plant pots out of it; nor do they take raku clay, and make fine china from that.
A master potter first determines the quality of the material, and then decides what kind of thing it is fit to make out of it.
The defectiveness of the clay (sin/inability to be molded) doesn't come because of the potter -- it comes because of the clay itself.

When looking at scripture, very few people are potters that they should understand the analogy of a potter. Nor are they israeli farmers, so that they should understand the parable of the sower in it's finer details; and yet, when it comes to something as complex as the ordering of the entire universe -- I see perpetual arguments based on fairy tale over-simplifications that no one in Jesus' day would have believed.

I wonder if Jesus is bothered by the "dumbing down" of the christian education of our day....

 

[Eugene]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

The defectiveness of the clay (sin/inability to be molded) doesn't come because of the potter -- it comes because of the clay itself.

That's easy for me to see as there is none good; no not one, and my old man continues to reveal its nature. The remedy? 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. We also are a new man and someone once told me that the one I feed the most would prevail.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

This is saying that Jesus made them know their sin leaving them no covering or excuse. The law which none kept as the ministration of death did the same. They had sin either way, but Jesus exposed it.

when it comes to something as complex as the ordering of the entire universe -- I see perpetual arguments based on fairy tale over-simplifications that no one in Jesus' day would have believed.

Fairy Tales or as you say further; dumbing down? Have you examples? I'm sorry but I have not went through the entirety of this thread. Thanks.

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

The defectiveness of the clay (sin/inability to be molded) doesn't come because of the potter -- it comes because of the clay itself.

That's easy for me to see as there is none good; no not one, and my old man continues to reveal its nature. The remedy? 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. We also are a new man and someone once told me that the one I feed the most would prevail.

Actually, that's a common misinterpretation of Roman 3:10.
Paul is quoting psalm #14, and note carefully it is the fool who says (unqualified) that there is not one who does good.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It's all one sentence; and a reading of Psalm 14:4-5 shows that the earlier part of the psalm excludes those who seek God -- but refers only to the sons of men who do not (a subset of all people); There are in fact Just people who seek God who is Good; whether or not everyone who seeks God have found him is a separate question. ( Acts 17:26-27 ).

The fool is an atheist, and an atheist says that all morals are relative fabrications of man's mind; hence, any act is good -- even preying on another man who is "innocent". The morals of some of the Nazis, in the concentration camps, or of various Russians doing Scientific experimentation on other human beings, et all. is also legitimate in the fools eyes. God, to them, is nothing more than a formula, an idea which fits inside the human mind and is controlled by it. They don't look for God -- but write him off as non-extant.

But, contrary to a shallow reading of the Psalm; Within scripture, we are told quite clearly, that there were people who in fact obeyed the law.

Matth 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matth 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
...
Matth 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?


Note: Jesus doesn't condemn the man as a liar, rather he says if you seek after something more -- eg:"perfection" then do more...
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect...
Mar 10:20-21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him...

So, we know by Jesus teaching that the man had already obeyed the law, and was worthy of entering into life.

Also, Joseph, we are told was a just man; and especially Zeharias and Elisabeth:
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

This is saying that Jesus made them know their sin leaving them no covering or excuse. The law which none kept as the ministration of death did the same. They had sin either way, but Jesus exposed it.

It's more than that; it says they hated him "without cause". The sin that Jesus reveals is the one of their own making -- not by God's ordaining it.
Savedbygrace57 is attempting to say that God pre-ordains the evil in each of us; but that's not the case.
Jesus, by being sinless, makes the claim of the fool in Psalm 14 impossible ; and, by condemning Jesus, these sinners show their guilt is of their own free will.

Earlier in the thread, @Deborah13 tried to make the same point to @savedbygrace57 , by showing God's denial of even contemplating certain sins;
If God never contemplated people doing a sin -- he couldn't possibly have pre-ordained it.

God did not tell or command the children of Israel to burn their children as sacrifices. HE said, it never entered HIS MIND to tell them to do such a thing. Have you ever addressed this scripture?? Seeing you don't given me quotes or @mentions so I know, I will just ask.

She's referring to the practice found in places like 2King 23:10; 2Chronicles 28:3; Ezekiel 16:20-22
and the specific quote Deborah13 is using, I think, is Jeremiah 19:5

when it comes to something as complex as the ordering of the entire universe -- I see perpetual arguments based on fairy tale over-simplifications that no one in Jesus' day would have believed.

Fairy Tales or as you say further; dumbing down? Have you examples? I'm sorry but I have not went through the entirety of this thread. Thanks.

Sure, though some are not directly thread related;

Does anyone know what the significance of the ring is in the prodigal son? Or, does anyone know what the prophets said about Jacob and Esau in addition to what Paul said in Romans 9:11-13; Or what are the distinct blessings, and how many are there, that a Jewish Father would normally give his sons? Or who knows the reason that Paul mentions the "unknown God" to the Athenians -- eg: what is the history of that altar? or what the Babylonian enuma elish is about, and how the final wring down of Genesis was designed to combat it, and at the same time negotiate peace between those two nations laws? (Hint, where was Abraham born?)

There are many points of scripture which are taken out of context, or which the reasoning behind the action/science is simply forgotten in history.
With respect to salvation and Paul, this becomes acute -- for Paul cites many things expecting us to understand their history; and we don't.

The Mormons have a novel interpretation, for example, of what it means to be baptized for the dead; Yet, how many can correctly explain what Paul was talking about?

Paul is a lawyer, possibly one of the brightest of all times -- but he speaks like a lawyer, making very narrow and technical points which the unlearned simply can't follow; and even those who study law find difficult to grasp. We aren't given the other half of the conversation, but only hear Paul's corrective action -- and many popular inferences -- are simply fantastic interpolations of ignorace over 2000 years... they've become almost old wives tales which people pass on to each other; I know that I learned many things about Paul by word of mouth from other Christians when I started out -- because I simply couldn't understand him -- and now, looking back -- I'm somewhat embarassed by what I used to believe.

Most people really DONT figure these things out from Paul by themselves, but hear things.... like gossip.

2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Eugene]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Actually, that's a common misinterpretation of Roman 3:10.
Paul is quoting psalm #14, and note carefully it is the fool who says (unqualified) that there is not one who does good.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Could we say that the atheist or fool has said "There is no God", but as Romans 3:23 says: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God? Before becoming the righteousness of God in Christ what good work could any do (2 Corinthians 5:21)? 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God . ." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your thought, but before we received Christ were we better than others of the world? Thanks?

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Or, does anyone know what the prophets said about Jacob and Esau in addition to what Paul said in Romans 9:11-13;

I'm being lazy here, in not looking up the scripture from the prophets. I'll just state what I have seen before, by my understanding. "the younger shall serve the older". We see this repeated in Ishmael and Isaac and in Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachael. In my simple thoughts, I see the two covenants, the old and the new, and as pertaining to Leah and Rachael...Jacob loved Rachael but first he had to marry Leah (the older) and then served an extra (7) years in order to marry Rachael. Leah, being old covenant works, Rachael being the covenant of grace. First being necessary for the second to stand, be seen, be reveled? Not sure how to word that. God's love being openly reveled in, Christ.
"God, loved Jacob but hated Esau" as in the covenants, God said He never wanted sacrifice (works) but love working, by faith in Him.
In the prodigal, I also see righteous works and God's gift of grace.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Does anyone know what the significance of the ring is in the prodigal son?

Yike, this made me rethink the prodigal, again...
I think the ring is the family seal. It would not be given to a young child, one still innocent, as they belong to the Father without question and have no authority given to them.
When the prodigal leaves, he chooses to leave the protection of the Father, he wallows around in sin. He is no longer innocent. He does not have the ring that announces who he is or gives him authority of any kind, in his Father's family name.

 

[ezra]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

the ring was authority most likely a signet ring

I think the ring is the family seal.

exactly

 

[gr8grace]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Does anyone know what the significance of the ring is in the prodigal son?

Yike, this made me rethink the prodigal, again...
I think the ring is the family seal. It would not be given to a young child, one still innocent, as they belong to the Father without question and have no authority given to them.
When the prodigal leaves, he chooses to leave the protection of the Father, he wallows around in sin. He is no longer innocent. He does not have the ring that announces who he is or gives him authority of any kind, in his Father's family name.

The ring acted as a "credit card" and Had the Fathers seal on it. The son could use it as he wished. The son was a saint (and always remained a saint in this story) that was restored to fellowship with his Father.

The best robe signified the sons restored fellowship with his Father.

The sandals signified the sons freedom.

The fattened Calf signified feeding on bible truth.

 

[Eugene]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

'll just state what I have seen before, by my understanding. "the younger shall serve the older".

Dear sister, it is actually "The elder shall serve the younger." My understanding here is that our old man serves the new, the first Adam serving the second Adam, the old and new creations which are manifest in Esau and Jacob. Uttered long after the fact in Malachi 1:1-3 after both their natures were shown. Romans 9:13 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

'll just state what I have seen before, by my understanding. "the younger shall serve the older".

Dear sister, it is actually "The elder shall serve the younger." My understanding here is that our old man serves the new, the first Adam serving the second Adam, the old and new creations which are manifest in Esau and Jacob. Uttered long after the fact in Malachi 1:1-3 after both their natures were shown. Romans 9:13 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"


Romans 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Opps... that is what I meant. "older would serve the younger".

The new covenant being the better of the two covenants. I think I got the idea across, I hope.

Thanks Eugene for catching that!

Oh what I see with Jacob and Esau is this....Isaac loved Esau, as the hunter (worker), God loved Jacob (usurper). ?

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Yike, this made me rethink the prodigal, again... I think the ring is the family seal. It would not be given to a young child, one still innocent, as they belong to the Father without question and have no authority given to them. When the prodigal leaves, he chooses to leave the protection of the Father, he wallows around in sin. He is no longer innocent. He does not have the ring that announces who he is or gives him authority of any kind, in his Father's family name.

I'm surprised at the first part where you mention "belong to the Father without question"; that's very astute. :love2
Below a certain age, the father is also responsible for the sins of the child, and the holiness of the child depends on the Father; (In Adam all have sinned.)

But, between your post and Gr8grace, something's amiss.
Notice carefully what the Father says in response to his other son:
Luke 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

Rhetorical: What right would the wayward son have to spend his other brother's portion of the inheritance with a ring?

In terms of salvation, the prodigal son is about the amazing forgiveness of God; and people often think that the moment a person who has been in a domestic violence situation, abandoned their daughter, done awful things -- the moment that person comes home (I mean on Earth) that Jesus wants everything forgiven without question or concern. They are to be fully restored immediately; (Which is very unwise, and I have witnessed the disaster that causes)

And yet, there is a tension between what we think the ring signifies, and what the father has *already promised* his other son.
Consider, even Jesus, can't void certain things which are already promised to someone else by the Father:

Matth 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Matth 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

When I ask what the ring signifies, I mean -- how do we know? and what are it's limits?
(Search the scripture for rings... it's not there.)

When speaking of predestination, notice what gr8grace said: "The son was a saint (and always remained a saint in this story) that was restored to fellowship with his father."

But that view means he was saved before faith?
Compare/contrast that with what "saint" Paul says here:

Romans 7:9 -->> "I was alive"(first) and then "I died"(second)?
For, he didn't die after he had faith in Jesus Christ, so he must have been alive before being old enough to be subject to the penalties of the law.
Or again:
Roman 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

So we see a second time, that infants have not sinned (the act, yet all die in Adam.)

And immediately prior to the man who obeyed the law since he was a child (no fall) we see this:
Matth 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children (too small to walk/infants/toddlers) , that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Matth 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

If children are innocent (saved is what I think gr8grace implies), then what does it mean that some men are not saved at the end of their life?
Or is it really nonsense that St. Paul "died" ?
For, if after one has faith -- they sin, predestination holders will usually say they aren't lost (dead.).

This is one of the questions that I have trouble understanding when speaking to people like SavedByGrace57.
I think there is a difference between sin and transgression; Sin does not mean one must have transgressed, although if one has transgressed they "have" sin. One is more precise a word than the other; and Paul's writing is made difficult by his choice of words. (difficult to understand.)

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

sadly, [MENTION=94666]About the Son of God[/MENTION], many a churches do dumb down the bible and don't study jewry then to learn what the man paul meant.i am as guilty. the more I think I know the less I find I do know.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

And yet, there is a tension between what we think the ring signifies, and what the father has *already promised* his other son.
Consider, even Jesus, can't void certain things which are already promised to someone else by the Father:

The Father can say the same thing "all that I have is thine" to each an every child of His. The things of God are not temporal but eternal. Can there ever be not enough of the Holy Spirit to go around? Can Jesus' blood ever run out or is it sufficient for all who call on His name?
In the story of the fish and the loaves, it never ran out. All ate until they were satisfied and there was still 12 basketful left.
In the wilderness, the manna from heaven was supplied with more than enough and some left over, each day.

I cannot think of anything that ring could mean except the family seal and the authority of the name of Christ. "Father, in Jesus name, I pray."

When speaking of predestination, notice what gr8grace said: "The son was a saint (and always remained a saint in this story) that was restored to fellowship with his father."

I think @gr8grace is seeing it the way I did too, before your post and my Yike! I saw that he was his Father.s son (saved), backslid, then restored in fellowship. Not losing his salvation at any time. Most people I think do see him as already saved when the story begins. Some think he stayed saved, some that he lost his salvation then returned and his salvation was restored. But then I'm sure you know this.

Roman 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

"Jacob I have loved, Esau have I hated" Covenants. "Not of works, but by the call of God into His covenant of grace provided by Jesus on the cross."
John 6 YLT
28 They said therefore unto him, `What may we do that we may work the works of God?'
29 Jesus answered and said to them, `This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.

For, if after one has faith -- they sin, predestination holders will usually say they aren't lost (dead.).

Not all people who believe that once someone is saved, they can't lose their salvation also believe in the Calvinist view of predestination. Especially not a hyper one.

"Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment:"
What I hear him saying is I am a servant and I have never neglected to DO thy commandment. So I see that one can be found guilty of sin because of neglect. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were correct in all the things they were doing but they had neglected to do the most important things of mercy, etc.
Do we neglect to love as God has called us to do?

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

So we see a second time, that infants have not sinned (the act, yet all die in Adam.)

Oh I forgot. Yes, I think Paul was saying the same. Before he knew what sin was he was a alive, but once he knew (understood) then he died. Because,
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Dang that old Adam, anyway.
When he received Jesus he became alive again, in Him.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Despise Dominion !

Jude 1:18

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Or the reject the Lord's Sovereignty !

This is what characterizes false teachers Vs 4.

They do this in a manner that deny's the Faith Vs 3.

They reject that Salvation is according to God's Sovereignty as Illustrated in Rom 9:11ff

The word dominion is the greek word kyriotēs:


1) dominion, power, lordship

2) in the NT: one who possesses dominion


Our english word defines it as :

the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

When Salvation by Sovereign Election is set forth in scripture, its is rejected, despised ! And by this, Salvation by Sovereign Election, has to do with Christ's Lordship in Salvation !

Jn 17:2

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life or Salvation to as many as thou hast given him.576

 

[savedbygrace57]

The question of the ages ?

Can God be Just and punish a man for sin that He Himself purposed that the man would do ? The answer is an absolutely YES ! In fact that was the very deal with Pharoah. God did punish pharoah for sin that God purposed him to do; God raised him up for that purpose Rom 9:17-20

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Thats one of the Ways of the True and Living God who made Heaven and Earth ! The natural man objects to this very solemn Truth, and even questions God's Justice therein. But what was the man of God's answer Vs 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This is God's Sovereign Right in display, God has the Right and executed it, to make a man to carry out a sinful purpose that the man could not resist or change, but he would comply therein, and then punish that man for committing the sins he had no choice of not committing !

Now, if we reject this of God, we are in rebellion against God,in a state of enmity against Him, and there is no question about it !577

 

[savedbygrace57]

Prov 16 :4 & Rev 4:11


The Wicked were Created or Made by God from His Purpose and for His Pleasure !

Prov 16:4

4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Rev 4:11

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

 

[mondar]

Re: Does man act freely and responsibly ?

Acts 4:26 παρεστησαν οι βασιλεις της γης και οι αρχοντες συν-ηχ-θησαν επι το αυτο κατα του κυριου και κατα του χριστου αυτου

.......................So, it's the verb form of "syn-agoge" but in the passive voice -- a place where people are "led" together.

Yes. They were the recipients of the "leading"; or if you will, they accepted the leadership of someone.

Clearly an earthly leader did. This is generally the case when nations make alliances. The part of the Greek I underlined means they did it themselves. ( auto=self ).

Pilate was "friends" with Herod after the event, but not before... so, these two were in on the plot; as was Caiphas.

Very interesting. You suggest that the passive voice relates to some human pers/on who led the nations to revolt. SavedbyGrace57 suggests that it was God. The grammar and syntax is not decisive. I say that for this reason...
* There is no need for any discussion on first person in the text. If the text were in the active voice, then SavedbyGrace57 would need a first person singular to make his point. However, the text is 3ird person plural in the passive voice. The nations were lead. SavedbyGrace57 speculates that it is God doing the leading, you speculate it is a human agent. Neither are directly in verse 26 or in verse 27 where the same verb occurs.

The conclusion is that the grammar can be read either way. To decide the issue one must look to the context.

We do not have to look far into the context because verse 28 is decisive. Even if the nations in verse 26 and if Herod, Pilate, the nations and the people of Israel in verse 27 were lead by a human agent, it does not matter in the context. The ultimate reason for the gathering is found in verse 28. The gathering was for the purpose of doing what the hand and will of God had predetermined or predestined it to be. So even if there were a human agent, he was gathering the nations because who then is behind the human agent that gathered them together. Verse 28 makes it clear that in the end, all human agents are determined by God will and predetermination or predestination.

So then, the problem with the way you are reading verses 26 and 27 has to do with verse 28. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that this evil gathering was not due to the decree or predestined of God. Do you read verse 26 and 27 in light of the statement made in verse 28? If not, why? What possible exegetical basis would there be for separating verses 26 and 27 from 28?

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

When I ask what the ring signifies, I mean -- how do we know? and what are it's limits?
(Search the scripture for rings... it's not there.)

Found something that may give a clue about the ring (signifies).

Exo_28:21 And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes.

 

[savedbygrace57]

God's Desire thwarted ! Blasphemy !

1 Tim 2:4

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word will here is the greek word thelō:


to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

b) to desire, to wish

c) to love

1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

d) to take delight in, have pleasure


The ESV 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now, how can it be that those Almighty God desires to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the Truth, that the all will not be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth, when God says here Isa 14:24

24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

The word thought means here:

to imagine, think, to purpose !

The word purposed here means:

an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

to advise, consult, give counsel, counsel, purpose, devise, plan

He says of them, so shall it come to pass and so shall it stand !

Also in light of Ps 33:11

11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

The thoughts of His Heart or the desires of His Heart, surely 1 Tim 2:4 speaks of a desire of God's Heart.

Now even in some men the promise is Ps 37:4

4 Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

And yet some would deny that God gives or performs for Himself His Own Hearts desires !

Finally Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

13 Yet he is in one mind, and who can turn him? yea, he doeth what his mind desireth.

Surely 1 Tim 2:4 tells us what His Mind desires there. Now if this be True, and God does not perform it, then He is not acting according to who He is. He is being less than God. If every single individual man of 1 Tim 2:4 that God desires to be saved and come into the knowledge of the Truth is not, then God's desire was thwarted ! And to say or admit that in any kind of way is Blasphemy in the Highest !