Does God always get what he ultimately wants?

I believe any objective reader would acknowledge the fact that I am more than fair and patient with you and your lack of clarity regarding the subject matter at hand.

Actually, it clarifies it, while your choice of verbiage continues to be ambiguous and unclear.

Actually, my statement is much more specific and clear than yours.

I answered that question already in a much more clear manner than even your question allows. Yes, God has a purpose in permitting men to go to hell, though he does not take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked. I can't be any more clear than that on the "subject matter at hand."

Was Edwards "skirting" when he used this term? What about all the other "Reformed" scholars who likewise use this term?

This statement affirms that you don't leave any room for the permissive will of God. It appears that everything for you is a result of an active and direct decree of God. You don't leave room for those things which are only apart of his permissive decree. That is not consistent with Edwards or the Arminian divines with whom he agrees.

Unlike your statement where all things appear to be apart of God active decree, as if God wills grace by the same type of decree that he wills Dahmer's intent to murder??? You make no real distinction between them...to you they are all just "the will of God" or the "decree of God."

For the rest of us, the sinful intent of Dahmer was a permissive decree by which God allowed a free moral agent to originate an evil intent.

You're right. It's the answer to the question regarding God's will and purpose regarding those who do go to hell.

Asked and answered, over and over. Here is one more time: Yes, God purposed/willed/decreed permissively for unbelieving men to go to hell, but he doesn't delight in it. He does not take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked, but it is a part of his plan and purpose to permit it. I really don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

God's pleasure is a specific type of His "will." He doesn't will for you to sin, in that he doesn't want or desire or take pleasure in your sin, but he does will for you to sin, in that he does permit, allow and doesn't hinder it. See the difference? He wills your sin in one since of the word (permissively); and he doesn't will your sin in another since of the word (desire/pleasure). Piper discusses this distinction in his article titled: "The Two Wills of God." (find it via google)


I'll stop there for now, got to go...

 

We agree, we just don't think its done "irresistibly." But even if it is accomplished irresistibly it still involves the compatiblistic response of a regenerated man, which is synergism with regard to salvation. Its the act of regeneration that compatibilists refer to monergistic.

Understood, but synergism is the simple acknowledgement of man's involvement regardless of its level or determinative cause. If man is at all involved it is by definition "synergistic." Within the compatiblistic framework the act of regeneration is what is monergistic, in that man has NO role to play at all. This is not true of salvation as a whole in the compatibilist system because the regenerate man must participate...even if as a effectual result of God's prior work.

 

Same answer as above. Yes, He permitted that they not believe, but that was not His pleasure. In other words, he desires for them to come to faith, but permits them to resist and disobey.

When you use the word "purpose" or "will" regarding God you must distinguish between his permissive will and his ultimate sovereign purpose.

He may permit you to sin even if he doesn't take pleasure in your sin, so as to teach you about mercy and thus accomplish His greater purpose.

Notice the three words I emboldened above.
PERMIT - PLEASURE - PURPOSE

They all three carry a little different meaning, yet you tend to use them interchangeably and without distinction. For example, you'll say something like, "God wills for men to go to hell," and some people hear you say, "God wants/desires for men to go to hell," and someone else hears you say, "God's purpose in creating some men is to send them to hell," and only some actually hear what you probably really mean, which is, "God permits men to go to hell for His Sovereign purpose."

I'm just asking you to be more clear with your choice of words so as to better communicate your intent, which would cause less confusion.

 

If you word it that way, no. If you word it in the clear and concise way that I have, maybe.

Why don't we ask them: Would all you NON-CALVINISTS agree that God permits men to remain in unbelief and go to hell for a purpose, but doesn't take any pleasure in the perishing of the wicked?

I can't imagine a single one of them not agreeing with this question.

Well, it appears there are some who argue that he must not only permit what He purposes, but that he must directly and actively (by his immediate agency) bring it to pass. And to me it doesn't make much since for God to "permit" what HE himself is DOING. This is why there must be a distinction between what God DOES and what God allows...something you don't do consistently, IMO.

Depends on what you mean by your terms "PURPOSED" and "should." I'd say that "God PERMITTED in eternity past every sin that would ever be committed for a PURPOSE, but He doesn't take PLEASURE in the sins."

Again, you use ambiguous and undefined terms when more specific and clear terms exist. See above.

I've been saying this to you for months now.

Sure you can. You can choose to define your terms and or use more clear and specific terms as I have done here.

Please do me a favor. DO NOT go around on other posts and say things like this and then attribute them to me in any way. In other words, don't use this vague and ambigous terminology and say, "Even Skandelon believes this." If you are going to attribute something to me, please directly quote my actual words or leave me out of it. I do care what people hear regarding what I believe because I take very seriously the holiness of God and I would never desire to impugn his perfection even if only by misunderstanding.

Again, I think they are hearing a different question from the one you THINK you are asking. Allow me to ask the question using my clear and very specific terms and I doubt you will find much (if any) disagreement.

Arminians are very close to Calvinists in the great scheme of things, yes. But, again, I doubt many posters here would disagree with my views if I'm the one allowed to define them.

Yes, you could say it using the terms I explained above.

WHOA!!!

Here is where you err. They don't sin because God purposed it. You may need to rethink your wording on that one. Maybe you meant that "they are allowed to sin because God permitted it???"

That statement beg the question by presuming your system is on the side of "sovereignty" which is the question up for debate.

That's strange because earlier you claimed to be a "Compatibilist," who are people that affirm that human free will and God's Sovereignty are compatible.

And this is why I don't answer you with a simple "yes or no." :tear:

Again, read my posts.

 

Luke, since we are discussing virtually the same topic on the Tozer thread I'll just leave you to your undefined and ambiguous terms on this thread.

And I'll leave you with this "off topic" quote from Edwards: "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency.'"

Don't you love how he draws a distinction between God's purposes by separating sin a being under His permission versus that which is purposed by His positive agency? Gosh, I wish Edwards would stay on topic!!!

 

I being one of the (Non-Cal, No-name et al) would have to ask for a bit more clarity of the phrase "for a purpose" before I could stand in agreement or not.

 

Whether you realize it or not you have just accused me of lying and intentionally deceiving my fellow believers.

What I have consistently believed and taught regarding the origin and existence of evil is not only supported by the Arminian divines, but by Edwards himself. It is what I REALLY believe and for you to suggest I don't really believe it is like calling me a liar. There is no "spinning," adapting, or changing my views to please others here. I have provided quote after quote from scholarly sources and more importantly scripture (which you dismiss saying, that it would be good to discuss them on another thread). You are simply avoiding dealing with the arguments being presented to you and you are doing so in a subversive and unChristlike manner.

It is clear you are the one trying to make a wedge or rift between me and others here. You do so with flattery and insults. You need to edit your post or I will report it for review.

 

Whether (or not) I find myself in agreement with Skan on any issue of theology is irrelevant to some degree. I do not delight in seeing him (or you) squirm. This theology "thingy" is not in my eyes a battle to be won or lost through argumentation, shouting or eloquence or any mixture of the three.

As I am sure you have noticed, I am a mathematician and thus very "empirical" by nature. Theology is not an empirical science and as such is not "falsifiable". By its metaphysical nature it hinges on the essence of faith. Faith in the Truth of scriptures. The essence of our relationship with God is in one dimension, FAITH. I do appreciate and respect men who dedicate their personal and professional lives to the scholarship of scripture and learn much when I apply myself to their wisdom but obviously EVERY biblical scholar does not "get" everything correct. I am not (Calvinist, reformed.....)and with a high degree of probability I can say I probably never will be. On that day that I meet my maker and if given the opportunity to ask, if I find how "wrong" I was, I will ask for you address and come to you in Joy and Gratitude and some degree of remorse for getting it wrong.

 

Luke, Skandelon continually gives you the benefit of the doubt that you are attributing evil to God and has shown incredible patience in explaining how you could use better verbage to avoid that appearance.

I am not only hearing it ("for months now") but seeing clearly your refusal to be rational about the issue. Personally, I believe the reason that you use the terms you do and refuse to clarify your position is obvious.

 

Oh, good, you agree with Edwards when he says, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency." So it should be easy for you to list something that fit under this description.

Luke, please tell us something that "comes to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency." And then list some things that come to pass by his 'positive agency.' Then help us to understand the difference in how God brought those different things to pass.

We are waiting.

 

Luke is not alone, I can think of several here who use ambiguity as their favorite tool.

This thread is about Unconditional Election. While it is true God purposed that unbelievers would be cast into the lake of fire, God never chose individuals with the intention of sending them there. God did not say, "I choose Joe here, and I am going to regenerate him and save him, but I am going to pass over Bob here and send him to the lake of fire."

No, God purposed he would save those who believe, and damn those who refuse to believe. But whether a man believes or not is his own choice.

 

Still waiting....

 

Let me get this thread back on track with this scripture passage:


All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, What have You done?’ (Daniel 4:35 NASB)

I think this verse can make the case for an affirmative answer to the question "Does God always get what he ultimately wants?" But I think the key word is ultimately.