7398	Forums / Theology Forum / The Snake Pit	on: May 28, 2007, 10:28:08 PM
Because of this God does not have to foreordain that some will be lost and others saved, but rather God only has to leave humanity alone and we are as doomed as if there were no salvation to turn toward. Here is my problem with your thinking. Obviously there are always consequences for the kind of language we use. I mean if i told you that you did not want to do a certain sin but you did it anyway then really i am giving you an excuse or an out. And i know you are not trying to say this here but that is why i like Edwards. Because every time there is a proposition stated then we must examine the intent or the direction of that proposition. There really is a negative side to saying that a will not expressed is a will. Because when we think in these terms we are really opening the door for the seeds of pragmatism. And really you are using this argument here and trying to argue that mans free will is in the equilibrium state by not willing absolutely. I mean if God is able to not will in order to get the purpose of mans destiny without God being in that purpose, it is the same thing to say that man is able to thwart Gods will by purposing his own destiny or end. Here to me language is everything, because i believe you are introducing the idea that God is not sovereign by not willing what actually happens. Which is the definition of pragmatism. If man is unable to choose, and God allows man to be unable then God wills man to be unable to choose. So that God is expressing His will in purposing man to be unable to choose so that man inability is within the purpose of God since God is the beginning and end of all things. God either wills man to be saved or He wills man to not be saved or there is no will at all.