Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I think AresMan's response clarifies the distinctions. Did God desire you to sin? No, but you did. Enough said.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can the non-Calvinists explain what is wrong with this question...
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
I think AresMan's response clarifies the distinctions. Did God desire you to sin? No, but you did. Enough said.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him, Col. 1:16.
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil, Prov. 16:4.
The Cross was not a contingency, it was the reason for the world.
God's desire for the wheat is that it be harvested, but His desire for the tares is that they be burned. And the only reason that the tares aren't rooted up and burned right now, is that He is longsuffering toward the wheat, not willing that any of the wheat should perish, but that all of it should be gathered into His barn.
just was addressing the "God is not loving/master" that arms might say about the God of Calvinism...
My point here is that God was under NO obligation to save any of us, as we ALL deserve our just punishment...
Its a miracle that God DID choose to send His Son to redeem his peoples via the atonement on the Cross...
Why get upset that God would chose to redeem out a electe group of peoples by directly causing them to receive jesus, instead of Him "trusting us" to do the right thing by accepting Christ, and allow for fact that NONE might do that?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, you have just told us:
1. He desires for the non-elect (tares) to be burned...thus they all will.
2. He desires for the elect (wheat) to be gathered...thus they all will.
Now, that you have restated what we all know you, as a double predestinarian Calvinist believes, can you address the actual question?
Does God desire for his wheat to commit adultery? If not, then did God fail when David did so? If so, explain how is it that God desires for his child to sin?
Can't you just concede to what even other Calvinistic scholars teach with regard to the distinction between God's will?
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply to Skandelon
The short answer to the question is no, man cannot cause God to fail. So if God desires all men to be saved, but all men are not saved, then something else is in play, because man does not stymie God. What else could it be? Lets see, how about God desires all men to be saved according to His purpose and plan. So if His purpose and plan is to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness, then the problem is non-existent.
God could compel a person to faith, i.e the Calvinist view, but that is not what scripture says God does. If God is love and love does not demand its own way, then God would set before us the choice between life and death and beg us to choose life. And that is what scripture says God has chosen in His complete sovereignty to do.
The short answer to the question is no, man cannot cause God to fail. So if God desires all men to be saved, but all men are not saved, then something else is in play, because man does not stymie God. What else could it be? Lets see, how about God desires all men to be saved according to His purpose and plan. So if His purpose and plan is to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness, then the problem is non-existent.
God could compel a person to faith, i.e the Calvinist view, but that is not what scripture says God does. If God is love and love does not demand its own way, then God would set before us the choice between life and death and beg us to choose life. And that is what scripture says God has chosen in His complete sovereignty to do.
The question keeps changing, especially when you get involved. The foundation of the question is, does God desire to make the tares into wheat?
Of course not.
Haven't you read whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; he cannot sin, because he is born of God?
Paul testifies to that, saying now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Study what the verses I quoted above mean, and you'll have your answer.
I do, but your questions had nothing to do with that, and betray a fatal ignorance of the state and nature of the redeemed, and therefore of the Atonement itself.
And you presume to instruct us in God's will?
That changes nothing. To say God desires all men to be saved, and then to restate it with an adverbial phrase is merely to repeat yourself and still leave you with the conclusion that there is a desire of God that remains unfulfilled.
Do you have children? Did you compel them into existence?
Actually we have an example in nature that shows us that love often does not let the beloved have his own way. The mentally ill are often committed for treatment against their own will by those who love them. The goal is to cure them, to transform and renew their minds. And those successfully treated will affirm that the cure is really what they did want, but just didn't know it.
We are told that we are given the Spirit of a sound mind. Obviously we aren't given something we already possessed.
Does God desire to make tares into wheat? Of course. God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Thus our efforts of evangelism are not confined to "outside the professing church" but also "inside the professing church." Everytime a "church member" even a leader, becomes saved, a tare has become saved. The key is to accept God elects for salvation during our lifetime, not before creation based on crediting our faith as righteousness.
Aaron, God's desire does not remain unfulfilled. It is just a different desire than the one you added to the text, i.e. God desires that all men be saved via compulsion, therefore God desires all KINDS of men to be saved.
Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not death only for some and life only for others, the Calvinist rewrite.
Yes, in the dark ages, they thought God compelled and so they compelled belief in their compelling God via torture and death. They trusted in the misquided view of Augustine, which "fathered" the dark ages. But love does not demand its own way and so their view of God was flawed.
But what about the use of compulsion, i.e deadly force if you will, to achieve the will of God? Yes, the Bible provides many examples of that, for the government does not carry the sword for nothing. So acting within the authority of government, we can use force and compel others to achieve godly goals such as protection of the innocent. But acting as individuals, we are to turn the other cheek and as far as it depends on us, to live in peace with others.
Calvinism is a relic of the dark ages, where the attraction of lovingkindness is turned into the compulsion of irresistible grace, by the mistaken views of men.
Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not death only for some and life only for others, the Calvinist rewrite.
Yes, in the dark ages, they thought God compelled and so they compelled belief in their compelling God via torture and death. They trusted in the misquided view of Augustine, which "fathered" the dark ages. But love does not demand its own way and so their view of God was flawed.
But what about the use of compulsion, i.e deadly force if you will, to achieve the will of God? Yes, the Bible provides many examples of that, for the government does not carry the sword for nothing. So acting within the authority of government, we can use force and compel others to achieve godly goals such as protection of the innocent. But acting as individuals, we are to turn the other cheek and as far as it depends on us, to live in peace with others.
Calvinism is a relic of the dark ages, where the attraction of lovingkindness is turned into the compulsion of irresistible grace, by the mistaken views of men.
psalms109:31
Active Member
Romans 7:
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No, the question was the same when Fredrick first posed the presumptuous question of this OP. I asked then, and I ask now. Does God desire for you to ever sin? You refuse to answer that question because you know it reveals a clear distinction (that even Calvinistic scholars like Piper and Sproul willingly acknowledge) but you won't because you've already painted yourself into a corner and have no way out except by contradicting yourself. Just like any cornered animal, you now attack me by accusing I'm changing the question, when clearly I have not.
Awww, so God desired for the sin dwelling in David to commit adultery with Bathsheba, but that wasn't really David? Is that your argument?
Why can't you simply acknowledge, along with much smarter Calvinistic scholars, that there is a difference in God's sovereign unchanging decree and what he takes pleasure in. It's not that difficult Aaron. Just own your mistake and move on.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
What?!
That "adverbial phrase" (according to His purpose and plan) clarifies a very important point. It points out that God's desire may very well be for men to have free will and make the decision to follow Him without compulsion. It also points out that begging question quality of the original question which presumed that was NOT his purpose and plan.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
BTW, Aaron, if you don't hold to the "two will" view of Piper (and others) then you will be hard pressed to answer the many passages of scripture which indicate God's desire for things that do not necessarily come to pass.
I challenge you to look at Piper's article and begin explaining all the passages he references without making the distinction between the two wills of God.
I challenge you to look at Piper's article and begin explaining all the passages he references without making the distinction between the two wills of God.
No, I did answer it.
You asked, Does God desire for his wheat to commit adultery? Now go back and read my direct answer to the question.
What is clear to the most casual observer is that when pressed, you change your story. You said I refused to answer a question when I clearly have. Now you insist that you have been consistent in your arguments?
You see? This is the reason that I did not expound on the truth in the verses I quoted. It is like casting one's pearls before swine, who cannot perceive, and neither do they care about, the inherent value and beauty of the gift being offered. The carnal mind either mocks this truth, as you did here, or perverts it into something monstrous. And our interactions don't leave me with much hope that your response to this will be much different.
My instruction to you is to learn what these verses mean.
It doesn't matter. Does God desire that all men follow Him without compulsion?
You will say yes.
Will all men follow Him without compulsion?
You will answer no.
So you are still describing a desire of God's that remains unfulfilled.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Two can play this game.
Does God desire for you to sin?
No.
Do you sin?
Yes.
God must have a desire that has not been unfulfilled. Unless you admit that God desires you and David (or your and David's sin
) to sin? You have yet to explain that one.Instead of ridiculing me and acting as if your "pearls" are just too good for this "swine," why don't you explain why you disagree with Piper and other scholarly Calvinists on this point? Are they just too swinish for your pearls too? Why can't you distinguish between God's pleasure and his sovereign unchanging decree?
Do you believe God delights in the perishing of the wicked despite the clear scriptures that says he doesn't?
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, Skandy, you didn't study out those verses, did you?Two can play this game.
Does God desire for you to sin?
No.
Do you sin?
Yes.
God must have a desire that has not been unfulfilled. Unless you admit that God desires you and David (or your and David's sin
1) There was no ridicule at all from my end. Take my comments at face value.
2) I'm not the least whit interested in Piper. I regard the Piper hype a fad much like popularity of folks like Max Lucado and Calvin Miller.
Hardly. I would probably find Piper's treatment scholarly and wholly unsupportive of the conclusions you have reached about it.
I can. It's you who can't. You have to understand that your errors concerning the state of mankind, the role of the Cross and the nature of the Atonement creep into every facet of your apprehension of the doctrines of Christ.
When one talks of God's desires and pleasures, you cannot have the same apprehension of the concepts as a Calvinist does. My response to the your new morph of the question will show how.
Is God a sadist? No. Is He a reluctant judge? No. He is satisfied by the justice of His righteous sentence, and the righteous will rejoice when he seeth the vengeance, and will wash his feet in the blood of wicked.
So, does God take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? No. But is he satisfied? Yes. Is there rejoicing in heaven? Yes. Do you have the keenness of sight to discern the difference? I haven't seen you demonstrate it.
What I find on the part of many Calvinistic apologies is the desire to somehow show how Calvinism is also in line with the carnal sense of justice of noncalvinists. I feel no need to do so. God is sovereign. His will, will be done. He has created some vessels unto honor, and some unto dishonor, and no man can fault Him for it.
It was His will that sin enter the world, that Adam fall, and that His Son would appear in the fulness of time to redeem a remnant.
You want to think that makes God guilty of sin? Let God be true and every man a liar.
Right.
Calvin spoke of proximate and remote causes.
God hates sin and cannot sin. Sin is anything that undermines the glory and authority of God. God cannot undermine his own glory or authority.
But God intended there to be sin and God intended for every sin that ever takes place to take place.
God uses every single sin for a purpose. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign above and in and through all. That ought to be enough.
We don't have to understand it. We just have to believe it because God clearly said it.
If we refuse to believe what we don't like about God then we create an idol god to suit us for us to worship.
Any God who is not completely and exhaustively sovereign above and in and through every single event large and small is not the one true God of the Bible. Period.
So when sin takes place all God's children ought to be able to say, "God hates that but willed that it come to pass for purposes clear only to his infinite and holy mind."
The other option is to do what the Arminians do and {Snip - do not question the salvation of others by suggesting they don't worship the one true God}
When they push this to it's logical end he does become the false god of Open Theism, imo- but that is for another thread.
The point here is that the one true God must be in complete control of everything and be bringing his will to pass in every single event that ever takes place- including those we don't like.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
So, after 6 MORE pages of discussion, Skandelon still cannot answer my very simple question in the affirmative.
That, in and of itself is telling.
That, in and of itself is telling.