Can the non-Calvinists explain what is wrong with this question...

[JesusFan]

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."

{snipped for violation}

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.

I am a calvinist who happens to believe that there are things that are directly caused/determined by God, His divine Will being exercised, and there are others thing that he permits/allows to happen/ His permissive Will...

Are you saying that you see God as being direct causer ALL things? Including Sin/Evil/Fall?

 

[Skandelon]

I am a calvinist who happens to believe that there are things that are directly caused/determined by God, His divine Will being exercised, and there are others thing that he permits/allows to happen/ His permissive Will...

Are you saying that you see God as being direct causer ALL things? Including Sin/Evil/Fall?

Good luck figuring that one out! Quotes from Edwards might help, but I doubt it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Now, Skandy, you didn't study out those verses, did you?

Now Aarony, you didn't answer my question, did you?

1) There was no ridicule at all from my end. Take my comments at face value.

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't know why I would think you were ridiculing me by suggesting that to discuss these things with me further would be "casting pearls before swine." How silly of me.

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.

I don't care of his popularity either, I care about the argument he clearly lays out in his article to which you have continually ignored. I only quote him because he is known to be a respected Calvinist and you might have the decency to objectively consider his points while ignoring and patronizing mine...but, obviously not. At least you are as dismissive and rude to all brethren without discrimination. A fruit of the tree, no doubt.

Hardly. I would probably find Piper's treatment scholarly and wholly unsupportive of the conclusions you have reached about it.

What conclusion would that be exactly? That there are two wills of God (the title of the article)? That there may be a distinction in what God sovereignly decrees and what he finds pleasure in? Do you think he doesn't confirm that basic premise...you know the one you refuse to acknowledge?

So, does God take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? No.

Yet, they are destroyed, so according to your OWN conclusions regarding my statements: "You are still describing a desire (pleasure) of God's that remains unfulfilled."

Enough said. Thank you for finally showing the error of the question posed in the OP. You must distinguish between what God pleasures in and what he sovereignly determined regardless of whether you are a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist. Thank you for you contribution, your services are no longer needed.

 

[Skandelon]

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 is blatantly false Fredrick. I did affirm in my very first reply that nothing can thwart God's sovereign unchanging decrees, but I correctly drew the distinction between those decrees and his desires/pleasures.

What is telling is that after all this time you either can't or won't acknowledge that clear distinction. Why?

 

[JesusFan]

That is blatantly false Fredrick. I did affirm in my very first reply that nothing can thwart God's sovereign unchanging decrees, but I correctly drew the distinction between those decrees and his desires/pleasures.

What is telling is that after all this time you either can't or won't acknowledge that clear distinction. Why?

maybe viewed as being one and the same?

 

[Skandelon]

maybe viewed as being one and the same?

Do you view God's desire (i.e. "do not lie") the same as His sovereign decree (i.e. "let there be light")? Is there not a difference in what God takes pleasure in and what might actually come to pass (i.e. the destruction of the wicked)? I don't see how any one can not see that simple distinction, regardless of where they land on the issue of soteriology.

 

[JesusFan]

Do you view God's desire (i.e. "do not lie") the same as His sovereign decree (i.e. "let there be light")? Is there not a difference in what God takes pleasure in and what might actually come to pass (i.e. the destruction of the wicked)? I don't see how any one can not see that simple distinction, regardless of where they land on the issue of soteriology.

You misunderstood me...

saying that the person that you are adressing with that questrion may see them as being same thing...

I hold that God has 2 Wills...
Call them determined/decreed and allowed/permitted

Or even more basically

General/Specific!

 

[Skandelon]

You misunderstood me...

saying that the person that you are adressing with that questrion may see them as being same thing...

I hold that God has 2 Wills...
Call them determined/decreed and allowed/permitted

Or even more basically

General/Specific!

No, I knew what you believed, I just asked so that you could clearly state if for them to read someone who is able to objectively see this clear distinction. Thank you.

 

[Van]

Does God repredestine everything. If so, then Calvinists redefine "allow" to mean compel. Lets say a person has his heart hardened, such that he will only and alway choose to sin, and never seek God. Now does it reflect the actual meaning of the word "allow" to say God allows the person to sin, when in fact what is "allowed" is to pick and choose between various sins, all with the same outcome for the wages of sin is death. Does this condition pass the smell test for "allowing" someone to choose life or death? Nope.

 

[JesusFan]

Does God repredestine everything. If so, then Calvinists redefine "allow" to mean compel. Lets say a person has his heart hardened, such that he will only and alway choose to sin, and never seek God. Now does it reflect the actual meaning of the word "allow" to say God allows the person to sin, when in fact what is "allowed" is to pick and choose between various sins, all with the same outcome for the wages of sin is death. Does this condition pass the smell test for "allowing" someone to choose life or death? Nope.

Are you saying that God is not allowed to be able to complete the hardening process in someone already bent to disobey God, by their own willful choices, ala Pharoah?

people are persuade in their own hearts and monds to rebel against God, to sin and go against Him...

Does God compel or harden them, or is it just the "fruit" of the sin nature/flesh?

 

[glfredrick]

Do you view God's desire (i.e. "do not lie") the same as His sovereign decree (i.e. "let there be light")? Is there not a difference in what God takes pleasure in and what might actually come to pass (i.e. the destruction of the wicked)? I don't see how any one can not see that simple distinction, regardless of where they land on the issue of soteriology.

I did not ask about all that stuff...

I asked a very simple question, which could be answered by most any Sunday school kiddo with a yes or no.

 

[Skandelon]

I did not ask about all that stuff...

I asked a very simple question, which could be answered by most any Sunday school kiddo with a yes or no.

You are not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself brother. Defining what you mean when you speak of God's "DESIRE" is necessary (as Piper and Sproul both point out).

You asked, "Are you saying that if God desires something that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

I pointed out that God doesn't desire the perishing of the wicked or for you to sin, yet those things happen. Did God fail in these cases?

How would the Sunday School kiddo answer that question, Fredrick? Yes or no?

 

[convicted1]

Fredrick asked me this question in another thread and when I refused to give him a "yes or no" response and explained to him the difference between God's desire and his Sovereign unchanging decree, he mocked and ridiculed me as if I just didn't understand and as if I believed man is more powerful that God. He also implied that EVERYONE else understands his question without having to make the distinction between God's pleasure/desire and his sovereign purposes. Here is the question:



Can you all explain to him the error of his unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between God's desires and his sovereign unchanging decrees, because clearly he cannot hear it from me. Thanks

God's overall plan can not, and will not, be thwarted. His overplan was to send His Son to die on the cross to pay the "sin debt" in full. He did just that. His overall plan includes the saving of those who put their trust in Him(those who choose to believe). He did just that. His overall plan also includes sending those who fail to believe(those who chose not to believe) to the lake of fire, to torment for eternity, and those who chose to believe, take home to Heaven to rejoice eternally.

God desires to see people saved, and I guess He also desires to see that sin should not, and will not, go unpunished. But, I can find no where in scripture, where He desires to presdestine anyone from "eternity pat" to an eternity in the lake of fire.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[glfredrick]

You are not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself brother. Defining what you mean when you speak of God's "DESIRE" is necessary (as Piper and Sproul both point out).

You asked, "Are you saying that if God desires something that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

I pointed out that God doesn't desire the perishing of the wicked or for you to sin, yet those things happen. Did God fail in these cases?

How would the Sunday School kiddo answer that question, Fredrick? Yes or no?

Again, I did not ask all that stuff. You are welcome to keep trying, however. I suspect by now, that you are somewhat convicted by the nature of the question and where your personal theology is leading you. Especially since you are now arguing in another thread about the plain meaning of "every tongue confess..." Perhaps you would like to talk to God about some of your rebellion issues?

 

[Skandelon]

Again, I did not ask all that stuff.

That is like me asking you if you still beat your wife, yes or no? And when you try to explain the fallacy of the question me responding, "I didn't ask all that stuff, just yes or no." You asked about God's desire, which can be seen from two distinct perspectives even from the Calvinistic perspective. Why is that so difficult for you to see?

You are welcome to keep trying, however. I suspect by now, that you are somewhat convicted by the nature of the question and where your personal theology is leading you.

By that reasoning so is Sproul and Piper I suppose? This is getting absurd.

Perhaps you would like to talk to God about some of your rebellion issues?

What? Is this your effort to shift into a personal attack so you don't have to deal with the obvious deficiency of your own arguments?

 

[glfredrick]

What? Is this your effort to shift into a personal attack so you don't have to deal with the obvious deficiency of your own arguments?

I have made no arguments in this thread... Just reiterated my question. You, in a sense, are arguing with yourself here.

 

[Aaron]

Yet, they are destroyed, so according to your OWN conclusions regarding my statements: "You are still describing a desire (pleasure) of God's that remains unfulfilled."

*sigh* I said no pleasure, but no dissatisfaction, no disappointment, no unfulfilled desire.

Anyway this thread is dreadfully long, what with Skandy's tap dancing and all. See ya!

 

[Skandelon]

I have made no arguments in this thread... Just reiterated my question. You, in a sense, are arguing with yourself here.

I'm referring to the arguments and off handed comments you have made here and in the original thread.

Just answer the question I've posed to you Fredrick. I think that it is revealing that I've answered your question with great clarity, but you have yet to respond to mine.

 

[Skandelon]

*sigh* I said no pleasure, but no dissatisfaction, no disappointment, no unfulfilled desire.

Oh, so now you want to draw a distinction between pleasure and desire? I'm fine with that. It would still prove my point regarding the original problem with Fredrick's question and his presumption that God's desires/pleasures/unchanging decrees are synonymous. Thanks for help him to see that!

And how can you suggest God is never disappointed with all the many passages where He expresses disappointment and anger? Just anthropomorphic language, uh? Even when they are direct quotes from God's own lips? Interesting.

Anyway this thread is dreadfully long, what with Skandy's tap dancing and all. See ya!

I don't blame you for bowing out. It is quite clear you have no ground on which to stand.

 

[glfredrick]

I'm referring to the arguments and off handed comments you have made here and in the original thread.

Just answer the question I've posed to you Fredrick. I think that it is revealing that I've answered your question with great clarity, but you have yet to respond to mine.

That is intentional... Notice a pattern?