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

Yes, I do, and it is quite telling. I guess it was God's desire that I answer your question while you continually avoid answering mine, huh? Otherwise, we would have thwarted his desire.

 

Here is a quote from a fellow Calvinist making the point you don't seem to understand. Maybe you can understand it if it is coming from him.

 

Or better yet, maybe you can understand something from Calvin himself:

In his commentary on John 3:16 he wrote: "Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

I guess Calvin believed that men could thwart God's wishes (desires) too, huh?

 

More from Calvin on his commentary of 2 Peter 3:9:

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel.

See the difference in the what Calvin refers to as God's expressed desire in the gospel and the "hidden purpose of God?" That was the distinction I was attempting to draw. Understand now, or do you just disagree with Calvin too on this point?

 

The only struggle I'm having is getting to admit yours.

Calvin virtually poses the same question you did, "If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish?"

You asked, "If God desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?"

Calvin and I answer the question in the same way, by pointing out the difference between the two wills of God. How do you answer it?

 

Oh, so you are just cruel and enjoy causing others grief? Nice. And quite revealing.

You are begging the question by presuming that your view of sovereignty is the right view...(i.e. nothing happens that God doesn't "desire.")

Huh? Now you are just grasping because you know full well that there is a distinction in God's sovereign decree and God's pleasure. Just admit it and move on. Did you read Piper's article? What did you think of it? Do you agree with this assessment? If not, why not?

I did answer your question, remember? I told you that "No, no one could thwart God's sovereign and unchanging purposes." But, "Yes, God can desire some things (i.e. for you to resist temptation; for all to repent) that don't necessarily come to pass."

How can I be more clear than that?

Then you are not willing to address the distinction in the sovereign unchanging decree of God and that which he desires/take pleasure in. Ok. Be that way, but don't pretend that has anything to do with my not being a Calvinist. Even Piper and Sproul draw that distinction, why can't you? Too busy trying to save face and "win a debate?"

I couldn't agree more and the fact that you think this statement actually addresses our point of contention only further reveals your own lack of understanding or willingness to acknowledge the subject at hand.

So, now you are equating my unwillingness to accept your limited and ill-informed view of God's desire as my unwillingness to "allow God to BE God" and my "anthropocentric rebellion?" Really? Must we resort to such infantile accusations?

Why is that when some can't deal with the substance of the the argument they resort to ad hominem attacks? Have I accused you of not allowing God to BE God because you interpret God's working differently than I do? Have I accused you of rebellion against God because you hold to a different soteriological view?

Please explain to me and those following along why you feel it necessary to resort to such demeaning and childish tactics?

 

Code:

Just like those guys who wrote those confessions you just quoted, dancing all around by actually drawing distinctions and providing explanations as to what is meant by the terms. They should keep it nice and simple by just giving one word answers, huh? :love2:

 

You didn't draw any conclusions, you just asked a question. I clarified the question by drawing a distinction between the sovereign decree and desire of God...a distinction the authors of these confessions probably acknowledged in the same way that Sproul and Piper have.

Do you really believe I disagree with this statement? Do you believe any theologian in either camp really disagrees with this statement?

 

Actually, there conclusion is the same as mine with regard to the point I was making. Which is that there is a difference in God's sovereign decree and his desire. Obviously Piper, Sproul and the confessions you quoted draw Calvinistic conclusions, but they do so while acknowledging the distinction between God's wills. You refused to make that simple acknowledgement and ridiculed me for even attempting to make it.

Can you make that acknowledgement now? Is God's desire thwarted every time you or I sin or someone perishes? Or do you now see the clear distinction?

Speaking of short simple questions that only require a one word response, try this one: Is God's desire thwarted every time you or I sin, or someone perishes? Yes or no?