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

[glfredrick]

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 acknowledgment 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?

Who said I refused to make the distinction? Because I did not take up your debate doesn't mean that I don't know the doctrine (nor does it say what I hold about the doctrine). I simply refused to engage you in debate, which I have said all along. Yours is now a fallacy; argument from silence!

And, note, I'm STILL not going to engage you in debate about the issue. My question stands and the answer is still a one word answer, yes or no.

 

[Skandelon]

Who said I refused to make the distinction? Because I did not take up your debate doesn't mean that I don't know the doctrine (nor does it say what I hold about the doctrine). I simply refused to engage you in debate, which I have said all along. Yours is now a fallacy; argument from silence!

:laugh:

I assume that was in jest because the fallacy called "argument from silence" refers not to one who attacks straw-men, begs the question, and resorts to ad hominem attacks as you have done, but instead one who is "SILENT." You have given ample information for anyone to see you didn't, and may still not understand the distinction. If you do understand it but have just refused to acknowledge that you do in order to cause me grief, as you said before, then that reveals more about your character than your ignorance of this subject, either way it reflects badly on you.

And, note, I'm STILL not going to engage you in debate about the issue. My question stands and the answer is still a one word answer, yes or no.

You are engaging me in debate Fredrick, you just aren't doing a very good job at it because you won't stick to the subject. Instead, you ridicule me, intentionally try to cause me grief (by your own admission), beg the question by making presumptions, attack straw-men by suggesting that we think God can't do what he desires and the list goes on.

Why do you come to a debate forum if you don't wish to engage people in debate? Are you just trolling? What is your purpose exactly? Just trying to cause me grief? Does that bring you pleasure?

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, YOU started this thread to pick on a question that I posed.

I have reiterated that my question is not changed.

I have reiterated that I am not engaging on debate over the question.

Now, you want to take me to task and impugn my character for doing just what I said I would do? Shame on you...

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, YOU started this thread to pick on a question that I posed.

No, I started this thread so as to allow others to explain to you the error of the question since you were mocking me as if I didn't understand it, or couldn't respond to it. They said the same thing I did. Even a Calvinist agreed with the distinction I was drawing, so the goal was met.

I have reiterated that my question is not changed.

So you still stand in error by not drawing the distinction in God's desires and his sovereign decrees, thus I suppose you believe God's desire is thwarted each time you sin?

I have reiterated that I am not engaging on debate over the question.

Yes you are, you are just doing it poorly because you are resorting to fallacies rather than dealing with the terms of the discussion as have men like Piper and Sproul. You should follow their lead and be willing to draw the proper distinctions so as to clarify our actual points of contention.

Now, you want to take me to task and impugn my character for doing just what I said I would do? Shame on you...

No, I want you to acknowledge that there is a difference in what God may desire (take pleasure in) and what God may sovereignly decree, or explain why you don't. I don't want you continue to shame yourself by ridiculing, mocking and purposefully grieving me.

 

[Van]

Reply to Jesusfan

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?

No, God does as He pleases. Lots of times God hardens someone already going in a self-hardening direction.

Does God predestine everything. If so, then Calvinists redefine "allow" to mean compel. Lets say a person has his heart hardened, such that he will only and always 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.

But when God hardens someone so they cannot go in another direction, but the one direction purposed by God in His hardening, then that "sin" is not "allowed" it is caused by God. I put "sin" in quotes to call into question whether an action caused by God qualifies as "sin" a deviation from the will of God, for that person at that time.

 

[Van]

Are you saying that if God desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

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.

 

[jbh28]

Here's something from John Piper about two wills of God.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

 

[Skandelon]

Here's something from John Piper about two wills of God.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

Yes, I've referenced this article a couple of times because Fredrick and Aaron refused to acknowledge the distinction between God's desires and his sovereign decrees.

Calvinists obviously believe that the salvation of a select few is a part of God's sovereign decree, where as we believe God desires all men to freely and willingly come to faith. Thus, to suggest that we believe God is attempting to save everyone but can't, or that his will is somehow thwarted isn't a accurate assessment of our actual view because we don't believe an individual's salvation is under God's sovereign unchanging decree. IOW, we don't believe God desires (sovereignly decrees) to save everyone effectually. We believe God desires people to freely and willingly repent and follow Christ in faith. We believe God finds pleasure in this...He desires it, but He doesn't sovereignly decree it and then fail in his effort as Fredrick's question suggests.

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, I've referenced this article a couple of times because Fredrick and Aaron refused to acknowledge the distinction between God's desires and his sovereign decrees.

Once again (this is getting really old...) just because I did not pick up and debate with you in no way means that I do not hold a certain doctrine concerning God's desires and sovereign decrees. You continue to make an argument that I am simply not engaging.

Calvinists obviously believe that the salvation of a select few is a part of God's sovereign decree, where as we believe God desires all men to freely and willingly come to faith. Thus, to suggest that we believe God is attempting to save everyone but can't, or that his will is somehow thwarted isn't a accurate assessment of our actual view because we don't believe an individual's salvation is under God's sovereign unchanging decree. IOW, we don't believe God desires (sovereignly decrees) to save everyone effectually. We believe God desires people to freely and willingly repent and follow Christ in faith. We believe God finds pleasure in this...He desires it, but He doesn't sovereignly decree it and then fail in his effort as Fredrick's question suggests.

And, perhaps it would be better for you to STOP telling Calvinists what they believe and instead offer a positive apologetic for your own theology. IF you knew half as much about Calvinism (and as Aaron pointed out) or held THE SAME THINGS, you would BE a Calvinist, but it is evident that you are at war with Calvinism (or more accurately, with those who hold a Calvinistic doctrine).

 

[Skandelon]

Once again (this is getting really old...) just because I did not pick up and debate with you in no way means that I do not hold a certain doctrine concerning God's desires and sovereign decrees. You continue to make an argument that I am simply not engaging.

It doesn't matter if you don't want to engage me on that point. The question itself demands that point to be made.

It's as if I asked you, "Are you saying that if God desires people to freely choose or reject Christ's gift that a mere mortal Calvinistic human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

The question itself presumes that is what God desires and thus Calvinism itself would be in violation of that desire, which is to beg the question. Are you saying you wouldn't point out the obvious flaw in that question if that is what I posed to you?

I can't help if you ask a question with a flawed premise, but don't get mad at me for pointing it out. And certainly don't ridicule me and pretend as if what I have said is not pertinent to the question at hand.

And, perhaps it would be better for you to STOP telling Calvinists what they believe and instead offer a positive apologetic for your own theology

As if I haven't offered plenty of posts explaining my own views.

And I didn't tell you what to believe. I corrected a flawed question by drawing a distinction. I did this fairly by pointing you to two other Calvinistic scholars who make this distinction. You and Aaron responded by mocking me and now you even admit you did this to purposefully cause grief....then you have the nerve to say "Shame on you?" Really?