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

[webdog]

That is intentional... Notice a pattern?

I have. You tend to do this with many of us.

 

[Skandelon]

That is intentional... Notice a pattern?

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Yes, there is the "will" of God that he has ordained. There is also the "will" of God in regards to his desires. Obviously, God doesn't desire for people to sin, but people sin. God has allowed people to do this.

 

[Skandelon]

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?

 

[Skandelon]

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?

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, try as you might, I simply refuse to engage in debate about the question I posed. I wrote EXACTLY what I wished to write, and the question stands for you to figure out -- something that you are obviously struggling to do.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, try as you might, I simply refuse to engage in debate about the question I posed. I wrote EXACTLY what I wished to write, and the question stands for you to figure out -- something that you are obviously struggling to do.

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?

 

[glfredrick]

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?

I expect that it has never occurred to you that I crafted that question in exactly that language to cause you multiplied grief... I have seemingly succeeded, and I have also caused you to have to ARGUE your way around an utter view of God's sovereignty. You must employ the postmodern technique of deconstruction and parsing to get around answering a very simple question because you cannot both give an answer to that question and retain your theological position at the same time.

My answer?

Yes.

God can do whatever He desires at any time, with any person, for any one of His many reasons. He is, after all, God and I am, after all, not... Should His desires not work out the way I (or you) think they should does not eliminate the issue with God being God, nor does our lack of ability to reason through God's desires in a way that is both cohesive and substantive. There are limits to our reasoning, and I believe you have found your own in this question, for you cannot simply fall at the feet of God and allow Him to BE God without parsing, making exceptions, re-writing the question, etc., in order to continue in your anthropocentric rebellion.

 

[DHK]

God can do whatever He desires at any time, with any person, for any one of His many reasons.

Is this a true statement? Can God lie?
Will God ever go against his own nature?

 

[glfredrick]

Is this a true statement? Can God lie?
Will God ever go against his own nature?

Those are ridiculous questions, akin to asking if a square is round. Is rhetorical device the only way of getting around the issue of God's utter and absolute sovereignty?

 

[DHK]

Those are ridiculous questions, akin to asking if a square is round. Is rhetorical device the only way of getting around the issue of God's utter and absolute sovereignty?

Ridiculous questions stem from ridiculous statements, which you made. I quoted it for you. It happened to be the first sentence of your paragraph, the main thought, from which all the other sentences supported. It is not I that am making ridiculous statements here. I didn't say that God can do anything he wants; you did.

 

[Skandelon]

I expect that it has never occurred to you that I crafted that question in exactly that language to cause you multiplied grief...

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

I have seemingly succeeded, and I have also caused you to have to ARGUE your way around an utter view of God's sovereignty.

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.")

You must employ the postmodern technique of deconstruction

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?

and parsing to get around answering a very simple question

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?

My answer?

Yes

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?"

God can do whatever He desires at any time, with any person, for any one of His many reasons. He is, after all, God and I am, after all, not... Should His desires not work out the way I (or you) think they should does not eliminate the issue with God being God, nor does our lack of ability to reason through God's desires in a way that is both cohesive and substantive. There are limits to our reasoning

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.

for you cannot simply fall at the feet of God and allow Him to BE God without parsing, making exceptions, re-writing the question, etc., in order to continue in your anthropocentric rebellion.

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?

 

[glfredrick]

Ridiculous questions stem from ridiculous statements, which you made. I quoted it for you. It happened to be the first sentence of your paragraph, the main thought, from which all the other sentences supported. It is not I that am making ridiculous statements here. I didn't say that God can do anything he wants; you did.

From where in my statement are we allowed to fiddle about with the nature and divine will of God? That, my friend, is your doing, not mine. And worse, you are doing so in order to make a point, which is a really silly reason to speak wrongly about our God, even in a debate setting!

 

[glfredrick]

Still can't answer the question without dancing, huh... :tonofbricks:

 

[glfredrick]

Perhaps the Westminster Confession can explain it better than I:

CHAPTER V.
Of Providence.
I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

Or perhaps the First London Confession:

III.

God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: (Yet without being the [chargeable] author of sin, or having fellowship with any therein) in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; [having foreordained and] leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice.

Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26, Prov. 21:6; Exod. 21:13; Prov. 16:33, Ps. 144, Isa. 45:7, Jer. 14:22, Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16, 17; Num. 23:19, 20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4,5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4.

Or the Second London Confession:

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

2. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

Or Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will, 265):

I say that man without the grace of God nonetheless remains the general omnipotence of God who effects, and moves and impels all things in a necessary, infallible course; but the effect of man's being carried along is nothing--that is, avails nothing in God's sight, nor is reckoned to be anything but sin.

 

[Skandelon]

Still can't answer the question without dancing, huh... :tonofbricks:

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:

 

[glfredrick]

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 a simple and just give one word answers, huh? :love2:

I believe that if you read and distill their words, you will arrive at the exact same conclusion as I did. God can do what God wants to do, when He wants to do it, and with whomever He wants it done based in nothing more than His divine desire. Do I need to highlight the pertinent parts?

 

[Skandelon]

I believe that if you read and distill their words, you will arrive at the exact same conclusion as I did.

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.

God can do what God wants to do, when He wants to do it, and with whomever He wants it done based in nothing more than His divine desire.

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

 

[glfredrick]

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.

I stated above that I do not intend to debate you on this issue. I merely asked the question.

You then indicated that my question was ______ (fill in the blank, stupid, not well reasoned, lacking in comprehension, difficult, simple, etc., etc., etc.) so I figured that you didn't understand the concept that I was putting forth -- or worse, you thought, perhaps, what I was asking was something totally out of sync with any other existing theological position, so I merely illustrated the fact that others have said virtually the same thing, albeit not in so succinct a manner. To be fair, they did not pose the identical question that I did, but their conclusions are equivalent.

So, then the below...

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

Yes, in fact, I do believe that you disagree with my statement. You have spent some 10 pages in a brand new thread to discuss my question, and more so, to paint me as if I am the one asking something aims concerning God. You have wiggled, weaseled, de-constructed, parsed, argued, questioned, and otherwise worked multiple rhetorical tricks, techniques, etc., into this thread to somehow dismiss my very short and simple question that only requires a yes or no answer. I believe the proof is in your response.

 

[Skandelon]

To be fair, they did not pose the identical question that I did, but their conclusions are equivalent.

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?

into this thread to somehow dismiss my very short and simple question that only requires a yes or no answer. I believe the proof is in your response.

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?