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

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

 

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

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

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'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.

 

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.

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