Does God always get what he ultimately wants?

[Skandelon]

You lead the way by representing me honestly and by DIRECTLY addressing the subject matter at hand rather than deflecting.

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.

No. This intentionally skirts the issue at hand.

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

What you say here is not specific enough to even ADDRESS the subject matter in discussion

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

Do you believe that God purposed in eternity past that men go to hell or not?

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."

You can skirt it by saying this "permit" mess which is so ambiguous that NNE disagrees with it-

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.

This PERMIT statement is worthless and meaningless because it is so VAGUE that it does not answer ANYTHING.

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.

Of COURSE God permits men to go to hell.

That is not the question.

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

The question which I am considering you to be cowardly for skirting and avoiding and purposefully refusing to specifically answer is this:

Do you believe that God purposed in eternity past that men go to hell or not?

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.

Whether God is happy about it or not is not even an issue here.

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...

 

[Luke2427]

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...

Ok. Great. Now answer this. Did God purpose that the unbelieving men who he purposed to go to hell- did He purpose that they not believe?

 

[Skandelon]

No part of salvation is TRULY synergistic because all of it is initiated and empowered and brought to pass by One- God.

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.

The regenerate heart believes- but only because God gives him faith to believe and enables him to believe and causes him to believe.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok. Great. Now answer this. Did God purpose that the unbelieving men who he purposed to go to hell- did He purpose that they not believe?

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Thank you for clarifying.

Now, do you think that these people who have no nameable theology would agree with you and the whole of Calvinism that God PURPOSED THAT MANY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN CHRIST AND SHOULD BE DAMNED?

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

Yes, I affirm God permits what he purposes. Sure- who on earth does not????

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.

Right. And furthermore, you agree with me and the whole of Calvinism that God PURPOSED in eternity past that every sin that would ever be committed should be committed.

You agree with Calvinists that God INTENDED for EVERYTHING to happen just as it happens.

I am so thrilled to see you finally say this clearly with a clear "YES".

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,"

I cannot help what people hear.

What I actually SAID is true- if people want to hear that I said, "Pink elephants eat flying spaghetti monsters" that is none of my concern.

The FACT is that God PURPOSED that every man go to hell who will ever go to hell. Furthermore, as you FINALLY confirm- God purposed that they go to hell for not believing which he ALSO purposed (they go to hell for sin that God purposed that they commit but they are not delivered from sin because God purposed that they should not believe).

You affirm that nothing happens apart from the eternal purposes of God and therefore EVERYTHING that has ever or will ever happen, happens exactly according to the eternal purpose of God.

Of course this means that you do NOT agree with the "NON-CALS" who have answered in no uncertain terms that all things do NOT happen according to the purposes of God and that INDEED MANY of God's purposes are thwarted.

Here is the fact Skandelon. You are more like a Calvinist than you are like them.

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.

I could not be any clearer than this. EVERYTHING that ever happens, happens according to the eternal purposes of God.

God is not happy that sin happens. God is not happy that men go to hell.

But God purposed it. They do it because God purposed it.

Every millisecond every atom moves not an atom's width more or less than God has always purposed and intended for it to move.

Every single orbit of every single electron in every single atom that has ever or will ever take place was designed by God, purposed by God, controlled by God and fulfills his ultimate purpose for this universe.

I'd rather, if I had to err, err on the side of this Sovereignty- first of all because it is not possible to make God TOO sovereign just as it is not possible to make God TOO powerful or TOO big.

But if such a silly notion WERE possible, I'd heck of a lot rather err FOR God's sovereignty against man's will than I had FOR MAN'S will against GOD'S sovereignty.

But I do NOT err.

I abandon, like all mortals must, the existence of human free will in a universe ruled by an exhaustively Sovereign God- to mystery.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MAN CAN BE FREE AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN SUCH A UNIVERSE!

I just know that he is- the God who said in no uncertain terms that he IS exhaustively sovereign over the slightest shifting of the tiniest molecule and all of them at once FOREVER- that SAME God SAID man is free and responsible for his actions.

That's good enough for me!

Thank you Skandelon for affirming once and for all that you agree with us Calvinists on this issue- that NOTHING, no matter how small, happens apart from God's eternal purposes- that men go to hell because God designed it so and in eternity past purposed it (much to his sorrow- but for his great glory purposed it nonetheless).

 

[Skandelon]

Thank you for clarifying.

Now, do you think that these people who have no nameable theology would agree with you and the whole of Calvinism that God PURPOSED THAT MANY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN CHRIST AND SHOULD BE DAMNED?

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.

Yes, I affirm God permits what he purposes. Sure- who on earth does not????

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.

Right. And furthermore, you agree with me and the whole of Calvinism that God PURPOSED in eternity past that every sin that would ever be committed should be committed.

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."

You agree with Calvinists that God INTENDED for EVERYTHING to happen just as it happens.

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

I am so thrilled to see you finally say this clearly with a clear "YES".

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

I cannot help what people hear.

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

The FACT is that God PURPOSED that every man go to hell who will ever go to hell. Furthermore, as you FINALLY confirm- God purposed that they go to hell for not believing which he ALSO purposed (they go to hell for sin that God purposed that they commit but they are not delivered from sin because God purposed that they should not believe).

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.

Of course this means that you do NOT agree with the "NON-CALS" who have answered in no uncertain terms that all things do NOT happen according to the purposes of God and that INDEED MANY of God's purposes are thwarted.

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.

Here is the fact Skandelon. You are more like a Calvinist than you are like them.

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.

I could not be any clearer than this.

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

They do it because God purposed it.

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???"

I'd rather, if I had to err, err on the side of this Sovereignty-

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

I abandon, like all mortals must, the existence of human free will in a universe ruled by an exhaustively Sovereign God- to mystery.

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.

Thank you Skandelon for affirming once and for all that you agree with us Calvinists on this issue- that NOTHING, no matter how small, happens apart from God's eternal purposes- that men go to hell because God designed it so and in eternity past purposed it (much to his sorrow- but for his great glory purposed it nonetheless).

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

Again, read my posts.

 

[Luke2427]

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 don't have time right now to address the rest of this but before I walked out the door I thought I'd correct this error of yours.

Listen very carefully-

THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT GOD'S PERMISSION.

IT IS ABOUT GOD'S ETERNAL PURPOSES.

No one denies God's permissive will. If you wish to discuss that with me, I will be glad to in another thread.

But THIS THREAD is NOT about whether or not God PERMITS men to not believe and thus perish in hell. It is about whether or not God- listen to it-

P U R P O S E D​

in eternity past that they not believe and go to hell.

Got it?

Can you not answer that question without deflecting to A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT?

 

[Skandelon]

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!!!

 

[Luke2427]

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!!!

Yes, I love how Edwards articulates both my and the Calvinistic position PERFECTLY.
That NO EVENT- not even evil ones- take place by BARE permission.

And I love how you cowardly deflect once again from the issue of PURPOSE to permission.

We know why you do this.

It is your mission to turn these "non-cals" to Arminianism and if they see that you believe that God purposed that men be born and that those men not believe and that those men go to hell- you know they will hate you like they hate EVERYBODY who has a real theology.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

I will let Skandelon speak for himself here of course, but let me tell you what I think you can expect.

Since Skandelon does not want a wedge between himself and you guys who have no nameable theology, he will at this point SPIN his comments in a way to get you to say, "OH! Now I see. Yes, I agree with you."

But he will do this by skirting the issue of PURPOSE and focusing on a separate (howbeit related) issue- PERMISSION.


You will notice that he does this throughout this thread and the other in which we converse on these matters.


So if you are going to find out what Skandelon REALLY believes (because he does not want to reveal it to you guys) you are going to have to pin him down on God's Eternal Purposes.

You are going to have to ask him, "Do you believe that God always purposed for men to NOT believe and for them to go to hell?"

He will try to respond with this typical SPIN:

"I believe that God PERMITTED men not to believe- yada, yada, yada..."

Then you will have to say, if you really want to know what Skandelon believes, "Ok. But EVERYONE believes that. No one, not Molinist, not Arminian and not Calvinist denies that. That is not the question. The question is, "Did God PURPOSE (we know he permits it or it wouldn't happen- we are ALL in agreement there) for men to not believe and for those men to go to hell?"

And watch Skandelon squirm.

Or he will say something that contradicts his previous words to which we all have access where a few weeks ago he admits that God NEVER fails of any of his purposes and that EVERYTHING happens according to the Purposes and Decrees of God.

Now, I believe that you and Allan are the two most intelligent members of this nameless theology group on baptist board.

Unless you just WANT to maintain unity with Skandelon against me and the other Calvinists at all costs-
I believe you will be able to see a HUGE rift between what you guys believe and what Skandelon believes.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[quantumfaith]

I will let Skandelon speak for himself here of course, but let me tell you what I think you can expect.

Since Skandelon does not want a wedge between himself and you guys who have no nameable theology, he will at this point SPIN his comments in a way to get you to say, "OH! Now I see. Yes, I agree with you."

But he will do this by skirting the issue of PURPOSE and focusing on a separate (howbeit related) issue- PERMISSION.


You will notice that he does this throughout this thread and the other in which we converse on these matters.


So if you are going to find out what Skandelon REALLY believes (because he does not want to reveal it to you guys) you are going to have to pin him down on God's Eternal Purposes.

You are going to have to ask him, "Do you believe that God always purposed for men to NOT believe and for them to go to hell?"

He will try to respond with this typical SPIN:

"I believe that God PERMITTED men not to believe- yada, yada, yada..."

Then you will have to say, if you really want to know what Skandelon believes, "Ok. But EVERYONE believes that. No one, not Molinist, not Arminian and not Calvinist denies that. That is not the question. The question is, "Did God PURPOSE (we know he permits it or it wouldn't happen- we are ALL in agreement there) for men to not believe and for those men to go to hell?"

And watch Skandelon squirm.

Or he will say something that contradicts his previous words to which we all have access where a few weeks ago he admits that God NEVER fails of any of his purposes and that EVERYTHING happens according to the Purposes and Decrees of God.

Now, I believe that you and Allan are the two most intelligent members of this nameless theology group on baptist board.

Unless you just WANT to maintain unity with Skandelon against me and the other Calvinists at all costs-
I believe you will be able to see a HUGE rift between what you guys believe and what Skandelon believes.

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.

 

[Benjamin]

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

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.


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

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???"

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.

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.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I love how Edwards articulates both my and the Calvinistic position PERFECTLY.

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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

I think your constant propensity to deflect from the issue of God's eternal purposes to God's permission is proof positive.

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.

If you believe that NOTHING happens apart from God's purposes then YES you do- and BTW, I think you DO believe that.

My point in all of this is to demonstrate that you and I and Calvin and Edwards are all on the same page on God's eternal purposes.

What I wish you had the courage to do, and you may, is admit clearly that you believe that God in eternity past PURPOSED everything that ever happens including the unbelief and damnation of many billions of people.

It is what I REALLY believe and for you to suggest I don't really believe it is like calling me a liar.

I HAVEN'T suggested that you don't believe it- I am suggesting that you DO believe it but lack the courage to be clear on it.

You cloud the issue with permission knowing that ALL OF US AGREE on that. It is pointless for you to say in THIS discussion that God PERMITTED men to not believe and PERMITTED for them to go to hell.

NNE IN CHRISTENDOM THINKS DIFFERENTLY EXCEPT FOR THE OPEN THEISTS.

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).

No, all you have done is deflect from God's eternal purposes to God's permission because you don't want people like Quantum to know that you believe that God PURPOSED that men not believe and that those men go to hell.

You are simply avoiding dealing with the arguments being presented to you and you are doing so in a subversive and unChristlike manner.

Cowardice is not Christ-like. Nothing could be less like Christ than cowardice and hiding what you really believe.

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.

Report it. Then report yours for accusing me of not being like Christ.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

There is no intelligent person on earth who could read my posts and doubt my willingness to be forthcoming concerning my beliefs.

There is nothing hidden.

But nice deflection.

Any intelligent person can see that Skandelon has been VOCIFEROUSLY deflecting to avoid admitting that he believes that God purposed in eternity past every soul that would ever go to hell to go there.

 

[Skandelon]

There is no intelligent person on earth who could read my posts and doubt my willingness to be forthcoming concerning my beliefs.

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.

Still waiting....

 

[Tom Butler]

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.